June 15, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 17
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are
the House Leaders ready?
Admit strangers.
Order, please!
I would like to take a moment to comment on the tone of
debate in the Chamber. On April 1, 2020, the House adopted a Harassment-Free
Workplace Policy governing our interactions outside this Chamber.
In a report accompanying the policy, the Committee
states the following: “The House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador is
committed to a safe and respectful work environment for Members and employees
that is free from harassment, bullying and violence. It is everyone's
responsibility to foster a healthy work environment; to promote a culture of
civility; to demonstrate respect; and to recognize every person's right to be
protected and supported.”
While the policy does not apply to interactions within
this Chamber, given parliamentary privileges and the related freedoms of speech
that Members enjoy, I see no reason why the principles accepted by the House and
adopted in policy should not apply to debate here as well. I draw Members'
attention to the fact that language and tone used in debate matter. That is, I
see no reason why principles of respect and civility should not apply to debate
in this Chamber.
I ask all hon. Members to examine the language they use
in the House and to ensure that it is tempered, appropriate and respectful.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Placentia West - Bellevue, Burin -Grand Bank, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl
North and Exploits.
The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I sit in this hon. House today to recognize 17-year-old
Sara Thorne of Chance Cove, a resident of my beautiful District of Placentia
West - Bellevue who loves the sport of auto racing. Sara has been a regular on
the track in Avondale since 2019 and is truly a rising star in her sport in this
province.
This was evident this past weekend when Sara made
history on the track as she captured the checkered flag to become the first
female to win the sportsman main event during the NASCAR Advance Auto Parts
Weekly Series.
Sara is a trailblazer for young women and girls looking
to get into the sport of auto racing and the sport in general.
She's a great example of those individuals who want to
follow their dreams and become champions. Through her determination and hard
work, Sara is a force behind the wheel and feared by all who compete against her
on the racetrack in this province.
I invite all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Sara and her team on this prestigious victory.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
P.
PIKE:
Mr.
Speaker, 3L Training & Employment board, an organization located in St.
Lawrence, has a mandate to provide training and work experience to individuals
who may experience challenges in the workplace. Clients are paired with a worker
who assists them in the skilled development of tasks required for the workforce.
They are matched with local contractors, grocery store owners and the museum
where they currently run a business.
The Town of St. Lawrence and the board made up of
volunteers from St. Lawrence, Little St. Lawrence and Lawn have made significant
investments in providing the necessary equipment and space for them to operate a
jewelry making business. The clients who participate in this program use local
fluorspar for their craft and the end result is truly amazing. People from all
over come to purchase this locally crafted product. While visiting, they have
the opportunity to observe the clients at work or craft their own piece.
The people of the three communities are so proud of
this organization and their contribution to our community. It is a great example
of what happens in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when people take care of
their own and show the true character and kindness of rural living.
If you are visiting this very beautiful, historic area
of the province located in the great District of Burin - Grand Bank drop by and
meet the folks at 3L.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.
S.
REID:
Mr.
Speaker, today, I would like to recognize Rachael Moores, a 16-year-old student
in Pasadena who recently was honoured nationally for helping other students
improve their financial knowledge.
She recently entered a competition sponsored by the
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education and the CIBC. In this competition,
high school students from across Canada were challenged to use their creativity,
skills and passion to create new tools and resources to help young Canadians
improve their financial knowledge and capabilities.
Rachael excelled by creating a website called School
Makes Cents to teach fellow students everything they needed to know about the
cost of post-secondary education.
Rachael gives tips on how to budget, stores that
provide discounts, different types of savings and outlined different ways
students can pay for post-secondary education such as through scholarships,
grants and working or through co-operative education.
Racheal passed the first round of judging and was one
of the 10 finalist who made it to the second round of this national competition.
In the next round, she won the second place prize of $5,000.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Rachael
Moores of Pasadena on her accomplishment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
L.
STOYLES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House in remembrance of constituents and
friends who have left their mark on all of us all.
Mr. Jim Greenland, who served as chair of the Frosty
Festival and community volunteer; Mr. Gerry Taylor, a huge contributor to Mount
Pearl minor hockey and a member of the NL Hockey Hall of Fame; Mr. Neil Windsor
who served the District of Mount Pearl as MHA for over 20 years; Mr. Jim
Thistle, he is remembered for his devotion and love of his family and his
community service; Ms. Carole Burke, a lifetime resident of Mount Pearl and an
employee with the City of Mount Pearl; Margaret Pike, whose family was her sole
existence; Cyril Colford, a neighbour, friend and lifetime volunteer; also, Dr.
Val Conway; and Mr. George Murphy who will be in our thoughts forever.
Mr. Speaker, all these people surely have made their mark:
we will remember them all.
I ask all Members of this House to remember them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
P.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on June 11 and 12, I had the opportunity
to attend the 100th anniversary of the St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Bishop's
Falls. Friday evening was the unveiling of its centennial banner and on
Saturday, a prayer walk through the town, ending with a barbecue.
We all know the restrictions that have been placed on
public buildings, including churches, during COVID; however, with the dedication
of its congregation and leadership of Rev. Jeff Blackwood, St. Andrew's Church
has weathered the storm.
St. Andrew's Church has provided hundreds of community
services this past century, including baptisms, weddings, funerals, youth
programs, but most of all, a place to worship. Built in 1921 with its
magnificent architecture, the bell still rings for Sunday service.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House of
Assembly to join me in congratulating the congregation of St. Andrew's Anglican
Church on their 100th anniversary and wish them many more years of service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr. Speaker, while many of us do not even think twice about how we are going to
get to a doctor's appointment, go to the grocery store or travel to work every
day, there are many people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who struggle to
get around because of age, mobility, geography or income.
The value of ensuring seniors, persons with
disabilities and individuals with low income to access services and participate
in their communities cannot be overstated.
To help reduce transportation barriers, the Department
of Children, Seniors and Social Development offers the Newfoundland and Labrador
Community Transportation Program, with an investment of $300,000 in
Budget 2021. This program can
significantly improve an individual's independence and their health, as well as
help them become a more active member in their community.
It is available to municipalities, not-for-profit
organizations and Indigenous governments and communities to develop, implement
and evaluate a community-based transportation project that is as inclusive and
as accessible as possible. Many valuable projects have been implemented by
community partners with support from this program. I am pleased that seven
projects located throughout the province were supported last year, one of which
was Connections for Seniors Handy Ride Program.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I opened the call for
applications for the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Transportation Program,
with the deadline to apply being September 30. Successful applicants can receive
up to $100,000 for alternate transportation services for individuals who
experience barriers to accessible, affordable and inclusive transportation.
I encourage any community or group interested in the
program to reach out to my department by calling 1-888-494-2266 or visiting our
website.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
Mr. Speaker, I give credit to the minister for
implementing a Community Transportation Program for seniors, persons with
disabilities and low-income individuals, and especially the fact that he
recognized the many struggles faced by many people in our province. We recognize
the fact many of these individuals need this kind of support and we're pleased
to see he recognized the fact an allowance for transportation is a small step
towards poverty reduction.
We believe in a strategy for the inclusion of seniors,
persons with disabilities and low-income individuals in collaboration with
non-profit and community organizations. It's important to remove barriers and
help achieve the full inclusion of all citizens of this province.
I would hope the program will benefit the seniors,
low-income individuals and persons with disabilities in every community of this
province. Whether you reside on the Coast of Labrador, the beautiful District of
Placentia West - Bellevue or the City of St. John's, there should be no barriers
in availing of the program.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. The Third Party applauds the launch of this new program, as we
believe that people can't be independent or truly free if they don't have access
to equitable and accessible forms of transportation. Certainly, for many people
in my district, this will be helpful.
However, we also recognize that more work must be done.
Many people in this province continue to struggle to find adequate means of
transportation due to age, mobility and low income. For instance, the loss of
DRL means we now lack any intercity transit that is affordable and reliable.
That's why we're calling on this government today to go further, map out an
achievable plan to make accessible and affordable transportation a standard
throughout the province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased today to recognize Public Service Week –
dedicated to recognizing the outstanding public service employees who work hard
every day for all of us. We celebrate their tremendous contributions and
commitment to our province.
Each day, public service employees are on the front
lines, working hard to ensure our communities are safe, our families healthy,
our children educated. They work to build our communities and our economy. The
important programs and services they offer positively affect families,
individuals and businesses throughout our province every day.
The theme of this week, Proudly Serving Newfoundland
and Labrador, speaks to the pride and commitment we see each day from the
province's valued public service employees as they work to improve Newfoundland
and Labrador and provide needed services and information, making it a better
place to live and to work.
In response to the pandemic, they have risen to every
challenge, rallying to find new and innovative ways to serve and to care. The
pandemic has demanded perseverance and resourcefulness – the Newfoundland and
Labrador public service has met that challenge and has once again demonstrated
its excellence.
Mr. Speaker, their efforts and dedication are
appreciated and their important contributions noticed every single day. I ask
all members to join me in recognizing Public Service Week and the valuable
contributions of those that serve.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in
recognizing this week as Public Service Week.
I also wish to extend our appreciation to the
hard-working members of the public service who give their efforts and talents to
make this province a better place for all residents. From social workers, to
policy analysts, to snowplow operators, to ferry captains, the public service
has many professions within it. Each profession and each department works
together to serve our province.
This past 18 months has been a challenge for the public
service as many workers were forced to work from home, to find new ways of
accomplishing their tasks and stretched to make sure all essential services were
delivered. The public service demonstrated their true abilities and rose above
this challenge. For this, I thank them.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't take this
opportunity to give a special thank you to all those who work in the public
service in my district. Many thanks for the work you do.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance cop of her
statement. The Third Party caucus would like to extend our appreciation to the
public service workers of this province for the massive part they play in
keeping our society running.
Their dedication to their work has especially been
exemplary since the start of the pandemic. We cannot thank them or the essential
workers of this province enough for the service they have provided. I urge the
government to keep in mind the public service's value in the coming years as
they roll out their different plans for the public sector.
A minimum wage and adequate labour laws need to be in
place to protect all workers of this province. We owe the residents of this
province better than the treatment we have given the cleaners in this building,
who saw their wages cut and benefits stripped away as a result of privatization
in the Wells administration. So, please, keep them in mind.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are
there any further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we sit here in the House the future of the Terra
Nova Project gets dimmer as the clock ticks down to the deadline.
I ask the Premier: What actions have you taken in the
last 24 hours to encourage a deal among the partners?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.
Of course, the Minister of Industry, Energy and
Technology has been working diligently, long throughout the evening. We actually
had a call with Noia last night to see how they could be of assistance. We're,
again, pressuring the operators, the companies, the multi-billion dollar
profitable oil companies to come to an agreement amongst themselves, Mr.
Speaker.
Once again, we feel like we have a healthy, good offer
on the table and we're looking forward to seeing what Suncor, as the operating
partner, has to say and hopefully they can come to a resolution, Mr. Speaker.
But this is a private sector issue and it needs a private sector solution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the last 24 hours has the Premier personally spoken
to the Terra Nova partners to express the importance of getting a deal, and has
be convened a meeting?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question.
We've certainly been in close contact with the
partners, the many different partners, and the Minister of Industry, Energy and
Technology has been spearheading that. I have the utmost faith in his ability to
execute, as all of the team here on this side of the floor, Mr. Speaker. I am
very encouraged with how he has led this file, I couldn't be more proud to stand
with him on this file and I have every confidence in his ability to continue to
advance this file, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we get close to the deadline there are families out
there who are worried about whether or not this file gets done.
Is the deadline for the deal still today? Has the
Premier asked for an extension if a deal cannot be reached?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again for the question.
As we've said before, this is not our deadline; this is
a deadline amongst partners. We are not a partner in this project. This is a
deadline that they have implemented. We hope they extend the deadline. We hope
that they are able – as I'm sure the Members opposite do – to come to a
resolution that allows for the partners to execute on the significant value that
is our there in that resource, Mr. Speaker, so that we can have the returns to
the people of this province.
This is not our deadline, Mr. Speaker. This is the
deadline of multi-billion dollar profitable oil companies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, when defending the Trudeau government for
refusing to take an equity stake, the Premier said: They have no obligation to
do so.
Why doesn't the Premier believe the federal government
has an obligation to help get industries and jobs growing in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What was meant by that response was they have no
obligation to help multinational, multi-billion dollar profitable oil companies.
Mr. Speaker, they do have an obligation and they've
honoured the obligation in incredible ways for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They've given the assurance that they will be there in the future for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, including on rate mitigation, Mr.
Speaker, and other important files as we face incredible economic challenges
moving forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, we didn't hear that from federal
Minister O'Regan yesterday when he spoke to the gathering about saving the jobs
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Yesterday, the Premier said he was considering selling off the province's equity
in oil and gas sector as recommended by the Moya Greene report. But the minister
seems to disagree saying: Equity in and of itself can be a good thing.
I ask the Premier, can you please clarify: Is your
government for or against equity stakes in the offshore?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question from the Member opposite.
It's a good question, but I'll remind him not to put words in my mouth and
confuse what was said between the Premier and myself.
The fact is that you can save both things. The fact is
(a): we can consider equity. We have equity projects right now. That's certainly
something we can consider. At the same time, you can obviously consider looking
at the evaluation of the assets that we have: Does it make sense for us, as a
government, to divest of them? I think it would not be prudent to consider both
options.
Right now, there are absolutely no decisions that have
been made. We've been obviously considering equity as it relates to the Terra
Nova. We've made a decision on that. We do know that there have been
conversations in the Greene report. These are all things that we will keep in
mind as we move forward with the history of this industry and others.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Just so I'm clear: The minister does agree that equity shares are still on the
table for future offshore development.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
I
guess what I could say to be clear to the Member opposite is that when it comes
to making deals happen, we will always consider anything that will make a
project happen, to bring work to this province. But as we've said before we will
not take a bad deal, we will not participate in giveaways and we will not do
everything at all cost if it's to the detriment to the future of the province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We repeat our request from yesterday: Can the people of
the province see the two sets of analyses from the Energy Department and OilCo
of whether or not to take an equity stake?
Mr. Speaker, let the people see the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say two things in response to that question.
The first one would be: all in due time. Right now, this negotiation is still
ongoing. We have conveyed our position that there will be no equity. The
partners are still looking at it. We've encouraged them. We've talked to them.
We're trying to convince them that there is a solution for them to participate
in. Part of that is the $500 million that we have put forward.
Again, I do know that the people are interested in
this, but I will point out that there's a significant portion of this province
that's actually looking at us and questioning why we would even consider equity
in this province. They are questioning why we would even consider putting $500
million in. There are people on both sides of it.
Again, where we come in is: What is in the best
interest of this province?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will share that time is running out for families and
workers who work on the Terra Nova and looking to have some livelihood in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Yesterday, the minister said the government is ready to step up with help for
workers in Terra Nova if Terra Nova closes.
When you weigh the costs of the equity investment
against what we stand to lose in terms of employment, supply purchases,
multiplier spinoffs, royalties, revenues, bailout cash and the chill effect of
our industry, where does the balance really lie? Do you have a thorough analysis
to table for taxpayers to see?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I don't need a reminder about time is
running out here. I've been living with this since the first day I got in the
job. I realize what we are facing here and I realize what the families of this
province are facing. I certainly don't need a reminder on that.
As it relates to the jobs, I can tell you that is one
of the biggest driving factors in even considering any of this was what does it
relate to in the indirect spinoffs that come from this, not just the jobs, but
what comes out of this. All that has been considered; all that plays a role in
the negotiation.
We have made our position clear to the companies. We
feel that this could be a beneficial deal for them with the money we have on the
table. We feel that the jobs should stay here, but we also believe that these
multinational profitable companies – one of which made over a quarter of a
billion dollars just in the first quarter – we feel that there's more that they
can do.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We hope that the benefactors are the workers of the
Terra Nova Project and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Over the weekend, The Globe and Mail
published a report confirming two federal Liberals staffers were granted
exemptions to come to Newfoundland and Labrador during the provincial election
campaign. They are confirmed to have campaigned for the provincial Liberals.
I ask the Premier: When did you become aware of these
two staffers arriving in the province to campaign for you?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The first I was made aware of it was actually in
The Globe and Mail article.
What individual staff members do – that don't work for
me or this government – is none of my business, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, they were
here, as I understand it, working for Minister O'Regan and, on a weekend,
volunteered on an election campaign. The headline might as well read: Staffers
go for a run on the weekend, Mr. Speaker.
I didn't have any knowledge of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
So
in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a campaign, your federal
counterpart sends two of their staff down here who go out and knock on doors for
you and you're not aware of it?
We also heard they were making phone calls and knocking
on doors.
I ask the Premier: Do you believe knocking on doors
during an election campaign is an essential service?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
The
election was run under the Public Health guidelines, Mr. Speaker. I assume all
parties within the House followed those guidelines. Making phone calls is
certainly a COVID-friendly event.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These election workers were allowed in Newfoundland and
Labrador to get the Liberals elected, simple as that.
I ask the Premier: What do you say to families who had
to miss funerals of loved ones? Is your election campaign more important than
these loved ones' needs?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I
don't know how to answer that question. I didn't look at their application to
come in the province, nor should I. Frankly, that would be wrong. If that was
the case, then that deserves the question, but I have no insight into who gets
exempt to come in nor should I, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The federal Liberals won't do their part to help get
Terra Nova back operating, but they're quick to help the Premier and their
Liberal friends get elected.
I ask the Premier: Do you believe that your election
campaign was more important than the countless weddings that were either
postponed or held without loved ones able to be present?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, I would hope that everybody in this House
followed the COVID guidelines for the election, which were published in the fall
of 2020, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can't comment because I don't have any insight or
knowledge or (inaudible) on who gets exempt or who doesn't, nor should I; that
is a Public Health decision and should remain a Public Health decision above
politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Why should the families of
rotational workers spend weeks and sometimes months apart while workers on your
election campaign are allowed entry into the province for non-essential
purposes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I mean the answer is the same: I don't have any insight
into who gets into the province; it's a Public Health decision, Mr. Speaker. I'm
assuming that the Member opposite has full knowledge that he had no help from
his federal cousins during the last election campaign. I would hope that is
true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
I
would guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if my federal cousins wanted to come to
Newfoundland and Labrador in the middle of a pandemic with the outbreak that's
in their provinces, I would not be endorsing them to come here. I guarantee you
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
I
ask the Premier: Which Members of your caucus did these staffers campaign for?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't answer that either, Mr. Speaker, because I
wasn't campaigning with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have been told that the federal minister posted
photos online of two campaign workers on behalf of the Minister of Justice
campaigning.
I ask the Minister of Justice: When did you learn that
these non-essential election workers from the Mainland were knocking on doors on
your behalf?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you for the question and thank you for looking at my campaign photos
online.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
HOGAN:
We
had a great campaign. We had awesome volunteers, every single one of them.
During the whole campaign, whether it was knocking on doors, making phone calls
or doing work from their own houses, I can assure you that they all worked as
hard as they could and followed all health protocols that were required by the
chief Health officer in this province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
As
I see the Members discard and laugh at the fact – about what we face during a
pandemic and their disregard for the health of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's
concerning here.
So, Mr. Premier, let me spell it out for you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
What's so concerning about this story is the disregard for the travel ban put in
place on March 18, 2020. I cannot understand how knocking doors on an election
campaign could've been deemed to be essential work, when I'm sure the Liberals
were well staffed with provincial volunteers during the election campaign.
I ask the Premier: What exemption did the election
workers apply for that allowed them to enter our province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have the utmost faith in Dr. Fitzgerald and her team
to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
To
suggest that there was political interference is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. Dr.
Fitzgerald and her team are independent, as per the legislation, and they make
the decisions. They look at the applications and they make the decisions. I've
nothing further to say on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier rolled the dice and gambled with the
public's health, calling an election in the middle of the winter in the middle
of a pandemic when COVID-19 cases were rising, for two months prior, across the
country. He gambled and lost. Now we see the Liberal Party disregarding Public
Health orders that have –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D.
BRAZIL:
–
protected this province from the worst of COVID-19.
I ask the Premier: Why did you put your party before
the public health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
As
I've suggested many times, Mr. Speaker, and answered this question over and over
again, there had to be a COVID-19 election given the legislation that was put in
place by the Progressive Conservatives.
I actually think, Mr. Speaker, that's good legislation,
that when there is a change there should be an election. So there had to be a
COVID-19 election. The numbers were low; they were the lowest in the country. We
looked at the modelling –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
If
you save the stochastic event that occurred, then there was no way to predict
what actually happened, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Rahman was on to say that there was no
way to predict that massive outbreak; Dr. Fitzgerald has said the same.
All numbers looked like that it would've been fine. The
baseline was lower than anywhere else in the country. Again, Mr. Speaker, there
had to be a COVID-19 election and, subsequently, there was one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is well aware, from a lot of dialogue in
this House, of public – a PMR that was offered in this House and open dialogue
around not having the necessity to do that no matter what it took. He called a
premature election at a time that it would have been advantageous to him and him
alone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Last week, we learned from the Minister of Education that he had no idea about
the president's contract at MUN.
Today, I would like to ask the Premier: Is he aware
that the clerk of Executive Council, who he personally recruited and appointed,
is collecting a six-figure pension and $186,000 salary from the same government
job he retired from?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The current clerk is a tremendous, lifelong civil
servant, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I
will say this: He's getting paid less than when he was clerk for the Member
opposite. I think we're getting a good value for our dollar, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody is questioning the clerk's ability, but the
Premier is accurate here; he is getting paid less. From $202,000 a year to
$186,000 a year, while –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Mr.
Speaker, I will reiterate the Premier is correct; the clerk is very competent.
The issue has become he is getting less now at $186,000, versus his $202,000
when he retired last year or a couple of years, from which he still gets a
six-figure income.
The question here: Is he eligible for a second pension
doing the same job that he retired from?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite knows, there's currently no
legislation surrounding double-dipping. But I'm happy to have a fulsome debate
on double-dipping in the future, Mr. Speaker, as it is an important question for
this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Minister of Education believes that tax
preparation and personal training are not acceptable benefits for the president
of the university to foot the bill, will the Premier table the contract of the
clerk of the Executive Council for this House?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
I
look forward to seeing that report, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in a recent article in JWN Energy, it says
that if the Terra Nova FPSO is decommissioned, taxpayers of this province will
be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties to the partners.
How much money will the province have to pay and when?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to get back to questions that are actually
important and serious to the people of this province, so I appreciate the
question from the Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A.
PARSONS:
The
reality is that there is a royalty credit or carry back, which has to go back to
the partners if this project doesn't proceed. That would be in the range,
roughly, of about $150 million. The amount is due regardless. It has to go back
anyway.
What I would say is that I don't have a timeline on
that. Right now, our attention and focus have absolutely been on trying to get
the deal to go ahead. He is correct that there is a royalty credit or carry
back.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Absolutely shocked to hear that the minister doesn't think that people being
able to attend loved ones' funerals – and I missed my father's funeral, Minister
– isn't important or is laughable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L.
PARROTT:
I
did, absolutely.
The reason the minister cannot give an answer is
because he does not have an up-to-date commission or cost and analysis from the
partners.
I ask the Premier: Why haven't you factored the cost
into this decision?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the Member opposite likes to play politics, and
I send my condolences.
The reality is you cannot use the questions that he is
asking here about two people coming down to this province and, basically, saying
that Dr. Janice Fitzgerald –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
A.
PARSONS:
Keep going. Keep going. You want me to answer the question?
We're talking about election staffers coming down;
we're talking about elections during pandemic time, and that's what we're coming
back on. Why don't we put the questions back on where you've been going all
week, which is Terra Nova, which is important?
If you have more questions to ask on Terra Nova, I'll
certainly take them. Please ask them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Clearly, the last question was on the Terra Nova and the minister failed to
answer it again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
PARROTT:
I
ask the Premier: Why haven't you factored the decommissioning cost, the indirect
cost, into your decision for not backing Terra Nova?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, we have looked at decommissioning costs, and
there's a significant cost that's associated with decommissioning. The cost can
change depending on when it happens and how it happens.
The big thing that we've put across here is that we do
not want to take on that liability when we're coming in at the end of the field.
All the other companies, this has already been budgeted in to their projections.
This is something that they accounted for at the beginning, and now when we have
15 per cent left and we're going to be asked to take a percentage of
decommissioning costs, a cost that we do not know and cannot control, that's
something we weren't ready to take the risk for.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
I
remind the minister that the Terra Nova came in in 2019, two years ago almost.
I'm shocked that we don't know what the cost would be to this date.
The Premier has said the oil is still in the ground.
Oil in the ground is only good if it results in jobs and a revenue stream for
the province.
How will this oil be used if the Terra Nova does not
proceed? Is there a plan for a possible subsea tie-back?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member opposite is shocked. Every question that he
asks he is shocked. The reality is that we don't know everything, okay. I don't
know if that's news to anybody, but certain things are unknown at this time. We
would not be able to know them. We can have projections, we can have estimates,
but we wouldn't be able to know them, nor would we have control.
Now, the reality is that there is an asset, there is
oil still under that. We have no plans for a subsea tie-back. That's a comment
that I've heard in the past. That's not our plan, that's not something that we
would engage in.
What I will say is our attention solely to date has
been trying to find a way to put half a billion dollars into jobs and into this
project and asking, pleading with the partners to come together and find a way
forward so that oil is taken out for the benefit of this province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not shocked we never got an answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Last week, when I asked about the sad case of a rogue investment advisor who
defrauded six elderly clients out of their life savings, the minister was vague
and deferred to future improvements of the
Securities Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is not going to help these seniors.
If the industry regulator has been pleading with
government for years to bring in stronger regulations, what is the minister
waiting for?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think financial security of our seniors is extremely
important. It's incredibly unfortunate that someone defrauded these seniors. I
can't comment on a specific situation, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that the
current regulations do catch any specific examples that we're talking about.
If you look on the Order Paper you can see the
Securities Act, where we are bringing
in changes to strengthen the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's high time that we get this stuff done. You wonder
why the public is so poisoned with everybody. It's just so long to get
legislation done. Let's get on it and get it done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Mr.
Speaker, this sounds like the same thing we heard on the ATV legislation. The
industry regulator organization of Canada has complained for years that their
power in NL is all bark and no financial bite. Government has been aware of this
problem since at least 2019. Now, six elderly residents have lost their life
savings.
When, finally, is the minister going to act?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member asks a very important question about ATV
safety and off-road vehicle safety, which is incredibly important to our
government. I'm very sorry to the families and loved ones of those who've lost
their lives and have been injured in an accident this year, Mr. Speaker, and any
time.
We have done a comprehensive review of the legislation.
We're recently in the final consultation stages. It's very complex legislation.
We had to make sure all the right parties were consulted. I look forward to
bringing legislation to the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, as is in my mandate
letter.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to that legislation.
As the province transitions to welcome visitors, many
residents are still exceptionally frustrated with long delays to access services
from Motor Registration. My office continues to hear from residents who are
waiting a month or longer for an appointment.
Mr. Speaker: When is the minister going to open up her
department for normal counter service?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know Motor Registration Division is a very important
service to the residents of the province and one that we take very seriously. In
the last two seasons we've had to completely change how we deliver service to
the residents of this province, Mr. Speaker. If you look across our province, in
seven out of 11 offices you can get an appointment that same week, and in some
of the other offices it is longer.
I thank the public for their patience. We're working
with new technologies, focusing on user experience and resident experience to
deliver more value for taxpayers. I take this responsibility very seriously and
we are hoping to improve the experience for residents of the province.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry, Energy and
Technology stated that, contrary to the beliefs of the NDP, we are not prepared
to give up today on the workers that are involved in the oil and gas sector.
Will the minister clarify how asking for a just and
orderly transition plan to avoid the sudden and unmanageable shock, such as what
we're seeing with the Terra Nova FPSO, is giving up on oil and gas workers and
the communities who depend on them?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
I
thank the Member for the question.
I apologize because sometimes I do get confused,
because there's a leader that appears outside and actually criticized us for
putting $500 million into this to try to keep jobs here; whereas the Member
inside asked questions about trying to transition. There is a confusion here. I
don't know which speech I should listen to. There is someone outside who speaks
for the NDP and went all over us about trying to put money into this, to try to
keep it alive and, hence, to try to save jobs.
Again, I apologize to the speaker for the confusion;
maybe somebody can help me out.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm shocked and pleased at that response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
DINN:
The
Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology said yesterday during Question
Period that we will be launching a renewable energy plan, hopefully, sometime
during 2021, and that's good to hear; however, we are almost halfway through
2021.
Will the minister provide details about how this plan
is being or will be developed, who will have input into developing it and when
we can expect to see a draft plan? Basically, what is the timeline?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hopefully, nothing that I say to the Member this time
will be shocking, but I do hope to be able to try to please you with the answer
that I give.
The reality is, as I said yesterday, I can't put a
timeline on it, except to say that it is coming in 2021. Obviously, we will be
speaking to, not just people within the department but our contacts all over the
province, whether it be with Noia, whether it be with NEIA or whether it be with
any of the stakeholders that are out there and have expertise in this.
We will want to draw from a wide range of experts on
this so they will help formulate the basis for our plan going forward; one that
we will obviously be very happy to table and to show everybody in the province
when it is ready in 2021.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology:
Will other groups, such as those concerned about the environment, play a role in
developing a plan as well?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question from the Member opposite.
As it relates to putting out a renewable energy plan,
we will consult with experts in the renewable energy field. But I will say that
as a plan like that comes forward, one group that we will consult with would be
the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and multiple other departments
will lead into this, whether it is the Minister Responsible for Labrador
Affairs. There are a lot of people that play into this, the proper and best use
of our resources in the renewable field.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, the government has stated in the budget that the 911 services will be
brought into the core government. I agree with the decision and completed a lot
of work on this file. Many workers at 911 are experiencing anxiety, with
possible job losses in their future.
What assurances can you give, Minister, to these
employees that their jobs are safe in the very near future when you bring it
into core government?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member opposite for his support of the
position to bring NL911 into core services of government. We will be working
with everyone at NL911 to ensure that all processes are streamlined for the
benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we can save as much money as
possible. Certainly, when we do that, we'll be talking about where they can
position themselves in terms of jobs in the future, whether it be in this core
government.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are a lot of concerns, a lot of anxiety, with the
workers, naturally. That is obvious and you can see the concerns.
I ask the minister: Can you get someone from your
department or someone from Treasury Board to meet with the union so they can
start consultation, so their workers can start on the ground and know if their
jobs are safe and what they can do themselves to relieve the anxiety?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much.
This is an important question and I thank the Member
opposite for the question.
We will be working with employees, with unions on this
transformation. As the Member opposite noted, this was outlined in the Budget
Speech but now, as we move towards implementation, we will be working with
individuals. We'll be working with the departments that are coming within core
government. We'll be working with the unions to make sure it is a seamless
process and maximizing the opportunities, not just for the employees but also
for the people of the province to make sure they get the best level of service
as well.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, for a quick question.
E.
JOYCE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Can you confirm or give a timeline when your officials
may be able to reach out to the union to discuss the concerns that the workers
have at 911?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy again to answer this question. As we move
forward now from budget into implementation, we're putting in a process to make
sure that where they move within core government, how the transition will occur
will take place as seamlessly and as quickly as possible. We will be working
with the employees to make this as functional and as quick as possible.
Mr. Speaker, within the next number of months, we'll be
certainly making sure that this is done effectively and efficiently as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of road
infrastructure;
WHEREAS many residents commute outside the Southern
Avalon region on a daily basis for work and pleasure. The region has an expanded
commercial, residential and tourism sector increasing the volume of traffic on
this highway each day;
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
To upgrade this important piece of road infrastructure to enhance the ease of
the access to the Southern Avalon and accessibility for industry and others
coming to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the second or third time
I've put this petition forward since we came back. It's a very important piece
of infrastructure in our area. It's a road that's used extensively for truckers
coming back and forth across the Island for crab fishing. There's a tourism
section that's going to start now in July, hopefully – that's probably already
started in some areas – with boat tours, Colony of Avalon, Mistaken Point. So
many numerous tourist attractions along the way. It's a shortcut, too. Instead
of going out around St. John's, it cuts a half hour, 45 minutes off people's
drives when they are coming in for this tourism.
The condition of the road is deplorable in the
midsection. I mean, they've done good work last year. They done four kilometres
and the other end of Witless Bay Line has been done for three or four
kilometres; but the midsection now, seven or eight kilometres, it is something
that is desperately needed to be looked at, and hopefully we can get to do it.
I spoke also to some people that have motor homes that
are driving across. If you're towing a trailer or driving a motor home, you know
how bad it is when you hit these rough sections of highway. Not on the
Trans-Canada, but on these side roads. It's important that you'd look at these
pieces of road infrastructure. People are losing tires and rims and just
delaying their trip. It can happen anywhere, but that section of the road it's
happened a lot.
Also, I spoke to – as I've spoke before on this –
motorcycle owners that see me and say don't forget to question or put in about
the motorcycle drivers as well, because it's an obstacle to go drive in there.
Hopefully, the department can have a look at it and upgrade that infrastructure.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
George's Brook-Milton became incorporated on May 18,
2018, after conducting its feasibility study and received their municipal
planning area in 2020, for which a huge section – over half of the available
land – has since been designated for agricultural purposes. The town, nor the
residents were ever made aware of this designation until 2020;
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 rezone this agricultural development
area, removing a development burden for the Town of George's Brook-Milton and
the many households who unknowingly currently reside within this area.
If I may speak to the petition, briefly. I was part of
the group that brought in the unincorporated area in 2018. We had no knowledge
of the agricultural development zone coming into where current property owners
are, Mr. Speaker. We always had it in mind where the agricultural development
zone ended, and we were quite aware of that – many of the seniors in the
community.
But I think it was decision of this government in
2018-19 to increase the agricultural development areas, which again I have no
problem with. But they brought it right down into a community of landowners that
now they find that the homes that they've lived in for years are now in an
agricultural development zone.
So the purpose would be to increase our land and
increase our self-sufficiency in food services. It is not to go on to personal
land properties and restrict development into communities, when we do have so
much in the Lethbridge agricultural zone. So we have lots there.
It seems like it was arbitrarily done. Arbitrarily done
because we have homeowners now who find themselves on agricultural land, which
they were not apprised of when they purchased the land decades and decades ago.
I would ask if the minister could come visit to have a
look at this and see how it encroaches upon the community. We are big advocates
of agricultural development and having zones in our province, but not taking in
the households in the area of George's-Brook-Milton.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have an interesting petition here today. I believe
it's directed at the Department of Education – and, in fact, it is – but there
are implications for many departments and probably many MHAs in this House of
Assembly.
Budget 2021
stated that government will be taking the appropriate steps to integrate the
Newfoundland and Labrador English School District into the Department of
Education. With this move to enhance investments in education, there will be
opportunities to address inequities for the attraction of qualified teachers to
all parts of the province and to all recognized education systems.
Certain schools are finding recruitment and retention
further challenged as years of service for hiring purposes – i.e. seniority – is
not recognized between private and public institutions, whereas years of service
regarding pay scales is recognized.
Private schools, including the Mamu Tshishkutamashutau
Innu Education, for example, find that teachers are reluctant to apply, despite
offers of competitive compensation. An additional equity challenge is that
teachers of private schools or schools systems are not members of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the NLTA.
Therefore, we the undersigned, call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to recognize years
of service from recognized public and private schools when determining seniority
in the province. Furthermore, impediments should be removed so that the NLTA
could represent teachers from both private schools and school systems, thereby
supporting government's efficiency objectives.
Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, this independent role. I
thank those who are bringing these interesting problems to my attention. My
office is very busy and we're discovering many things. I am hearing the priority
of government is around reconciliation. I'm fully supportive of it and so on,
But we are constantly finding little stumbling blocks, little hurdles that exist
in legislation, in policy that are keeping things back.
I go to the example of the Innu education system, but
it applies also to other private schools that some of you, my colleagues in this
room, would have in their own districts. In that as we try to attract and retain
teachers, there is a reluctance to go into that system because any seniority
they will have developed with that experience will not be recognized, should
they return to the other.
So when I look at and having attended graduation
ceremonies in Sheshatshiu over the last several years – which used to be zero,
and now in the range of 20 – and the good progress they're making, only to
encounter these kind of hurdles, I would ask the Minister of Education and
government to take a look at this and see what we can do, especially with the
changes being made in the department.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I once again bring a petition to the House in increased
support for Labrador West seniors. This one has 283 signatures on it. Every one
I bring is well over the 200 mark; the first one I brought was over the 400
mark. So these are people who are concerned about themselves or their moms or
their dads.
The reason for the petition is: The need of senior
accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is still increasing.
Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility to need to leave
their home in order to afford to live and receive adequate care.
Additional housing options, including assisted living
care facilities like throughout the rest of the province for seniors, have
become a requirement for Labrador West. The requirement is not currently being
met.
WHEREAS the seniors in our province are entitled to
peace and comfort in their homes, where they have spent their life contributing
to the prosperity and growth of the community; and
WHEREAS the means of the increasing number of senior
residents in Labrador West to happily age in place are not currently available
in the region;
WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call
upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in place and provide affordable housing
options for seniors and assisted living care facilities for those requiring
additional care.
Like I said, there are 283 signatures here. These
individuals are themselves seniors or have seniors in their lives that are
living in the region. These are people that want to keep the seniors in the
community, keep seniors in Labrador West and provide the care and services that
they require.
They helped build the community; it's their community
just as much as anybody else's. Some of these seniors that are needing this
service actually came to Lab West as very young people, or some were almost born
there themselves. So we're getting to a place in our community where these
people are going to need these services.
We're a young, vibrant community, but we have seniors
who want to stay. It's just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. This is a
problem that is new to the region, but it's not going to go away. It's something
that needs to be addressed, something that needs to be looked at. I ask all the
ministers that would be involved in this to have a look at seniors in Labrador
West, the care that they're going to receive, the care they need and try to put
the supports in place to build a seniors' system around there.
We don't have one. We're not as lucky or as fortunate,
even as my colleague for Lake Melville, who has a seniors' complex there. They
have the supports and wraparound services for seniors there. We don't have it in
Lab West, but we're a comparable size as that community. We do need it, we don't
have it and we really need people to pay attention and look at the seniors of
Labrador West and how they're disadvantaged at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.
J.
ABBOTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the Member's petition around seniors and seniors'
housing in Labrador West, that's something that we're certainly cognizant,
through the work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and
certainly through my department. We will be addressing many of those issues
through our Housing and Homelessness Plan and working also with the federal
government to find funding opportunities to meet that demand, which is not only
prevalent in Lab West; it is true, really, through many communities throughout
the province.
I appreciate the Member bringing the issue forward.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, before I get into my petition, I'd say:
Congratulations, Minister. That was a good answer and very much respect for the
House. Thank you.
The background of this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS there are no significant current operations at
the Bull Arm Fabrication site, it is a world-class facility with potential to
rejuvenate the local economy. The area has been troubled with the lack of local
employment in today's economy. I find this one to be more poignant than ever
now, with the work that we're looking to get done on the FPSO, on the Terra
Nova. I would expect that there would be a longer term tenant. I think that's
what we're really looking for here, because this is an asset of the province and
to benefit the province. A long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful
business opportunities; and
WHEREAS the continued idling of this site is not in the
best interests of the province;
THEREFORE, we, the residents of the area near Bull Arm
Fabrication site, 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 expedite the process to get
the Bull Arm Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process
include a vision for a long-term viable plan that is beneficial to all residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, just looking at the signatures on this one
– I've obviously been presenting this since I came to the House – these ones go
back to October 24, 2019, and they're signed by people in Chapel Arm. It does
affect people of a vast area. It's a very world-class facility.
The reason why I'm presenting this today is because I
understand there are some people that are interested in taking over the Bull Arm
Fabrication site. I just want to make sure, I guess, that the minister is
working on this file as well because we'd like to see – I know that the North
Sea Group would certainly be interested in sitting down and discussing long-term
tenancy of the Bull Arm Fabrication site.
Hopefully, we can get somewhere in the vicinity of a
25-year deal instead of a five-year deal. I'm not saying that DF Barnes is not
doing a good job out there or anything like that. They're a very reputable
company, but I don't think we invested in the Bull Arm Fabrication site to
become kind of the moratorium of our oil and gas industry.
I'd rather it be up and running and we can rejuvenate
it and get it going; now is the time. Like I heard recently, the best time to
plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time to plant a tree is today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 9.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not
proceed to Private Members' Day on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, but shall instead
meet at 2 p.m. on that day for routine proceedings and to conduct government
business, and that if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House
at midnight.
SPEAKER:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 10.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it's always a pleasure to speak in this House
and to represent the fine people of Topsail - Paradise. One of the quotes that I
tried to live by, as much as I can, is: Integrity is doing the right thing when
nobody is watching. I try to live by that, but I am a little taken back by some
of the remarks in the House of Assembly, just yesterday, made by the Premier.
I know we all make mistakes, I know nobody is perfect
but you have to recognize you've made a mistake and you have to take
responsibility for that. The key word is to recognize that mistake. Not wait for
someone to advise you, not wait for someone to coach you on how to respond. You
don't need coaching or advisement to say you're sorry and apologize.
There has been a trend here. We know recently the
Premier made disparaging remarks about a news reporter, we know the Premier,
essentially, told Memorial University to grow up and, of course, just recently,
the Premier questioning our Leader of the Opposition's intelligence. That's only
a couple of examples. If I stood up in this House and I called someone stupid,
dense, brainless or an idiot, everyone in this House would be on their feet on a
point of order. It doesn't matter the words you use, it's the intent. You
shouldn't have to ask yourself if you thought the other person was offended: you
need to ask yourself if your comments were offensive.
Now, I said it earlier, we all make mistakes. I've
noted, the Clerk actually said to me when I was first elected: Welcome to the
fishbowl. Everyone is looking at you swimming around, nowhere to hide unless
there is a plant in the middle of the bowl but you can't hide long. We are under
tremendous scrutiny. So I hope all Members, the Premier included, takes this as
a learning moment because we all need to do better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
DINN:
When so many people, children especially, are bullied and harassed on a daily
basis for any array of issues – we only need to see the pride flags being tore
down recently – we have to do better as community leaders, as Party leaders and
as Premier. We all have to do better as people.
Now, today in the House of Assembly, we all know, and
we see it everyday, some Members are more easily agitated than others. We need
to be empathetic because none of us are aware of what the other 39 Members are
going through; how their day started, what they're dealing with at home. We all
need to realize that. We all need to take responsibility for what we say.
I'm thinking of December now, I think it was December
4, there was an article came out in The
Telegram and it was in response to a
couple of Liberal MHAs at the time had arranged some fundraising events in the
middle of COVID. They took some backlash on that.
I look at the Premier, the Premier was actually quoted
in The Telegram – and I'll see if I can get it here – as saying: “As leaders, we need
to not just meet standards, we need to exceed them and live by example.” Well,
Mr. Premier, you have to start living by your own words. I'm hoping they'll take
this as a learning moment. You have to start practicing what you preach because
as a leader you affect, not just this House of Assembly, you affect everyone
that listens to you, everyone that looks up to you.
I think, too, when we come in this House – Pink Shirt
Day; anti-bullying. This is children now telling us this. Children have a grasp
on bullying and harassment. It's not just one day, it's every day. Every day
should be anti-bullying day. The motto was: Bullying Stops Here. That applies
right here. We should not be dealing with insults and barbs in this House of
Assembly.
Now, yes, we get into heated discussions and you throw
out a witty quip. There's a little difference, but I think we all know when you
cross the line.
I commend the Speaker. I firmly believe we elected the
right – although there were some fine candidates for Speaker of the House, some
real fine candidates – I do say I think we have the right person in the Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
DINN:
I
do appreciate your opening comments today. I certainly trust that you'll
continue to do your best to run this House in a cordial and polite manner as
best you can. Thank you for that. It's not an easy job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
DINN:
I'd
be remiss, of course, if I didn't speak a bit about the Terra Nova Project. I
think we all know what that means to our province. I can't even imagine the
stress and anxiety that the workers, their families and that are under. We can
always talk that there's hope and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but
that certainly doesn't help them currently. I can appreciate that. We all speak
with passion on that.
I don't think anybody in this House, on this side as
well – nobody is suggesting that we bail out the large oil companies or we
carelessly throw money at a project with no return on investment. What we are
asking is that in the words of this government that have said many times, that
we leave no stone unturned when we look at this.
I think it was the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor who
mentioned the difference between a risky undertaking and risks. Something that's
risky is something that's full of the possibility of danger, failure or loss.
Risk is the potential exposure to danger. There is a difference. I understand
the Members opposite spoke to this as risks. They did not come out and say this
is risky. I stand to be corrected if they did.
With any investment, there is risk. There is a
balancing process. You're weighing pros and cons. You may do a SWOT analysis.
You may look at return on investment. You would look at opportunity cost. I
don't have any confidence or level of confidence that a complete and full
analysis has been done.
I think we asked questions today, but we certainly
asked questions yesterday, and government could not tell us the benefits this
province would receive through HST, personal income tax and spinoff jobs. They
could not tell us what would be lost in that respect. They could not tell us the
value of the indirect benefits to the province from the Terra Nova Project
extension. Government could not tell us the cost to assist workers who lose
their jobs if the Terra Nova Project should shut down.
These are not issues that are covered by a
non-disclosure agreement; this is the work of government. This analysis should
be done. This analysis should be on the tip of the tongue. And I agree, we were
not elected to look after the big oil companies. We were elected to look after
the people here in this province. We were elected to do the best we can for
them. I think we really need to look at the cost of this project not going ahead
and what it does in terms of supports we may have to come up with and the like.
I have no reason, right now, to distrust the comments
of the responsible minister that they're doing everything. But it is harder to
believe when we cannot get answers to analysis that should be done. I would hope
that government will complete a full analysis, not just of the oil but what the
effect will be on our province, our workers and their health and where they're
going to be and if they're going to stay here. It probably should already be
done. I'd be happy if I hear that it is already done but, again, I don't have
confidence in terms of the answers we have been getting. This is analysis that
certainly can be completed outside of the non-disclosure agreements.
I would note the government mentioned to us that there
is only a marginal return potential. Outside of the marginal return, I think
when you look deeper in terms of keeping people employed, keeping families here,
that marginal return becomes a little larger. I think we need to have a greater
look at that. I know here we are at the final day; hopefully, there will be more
negotiations ongoing. I hope so. There are a lot of people in this industry
involved with this Terra Nova Project that are anxiously awaiting some positive
news, so hopefully that will occur.
I do want to talk about the budget; that is the motion
we're speaking to. We're going to be asked to vote on this. People ask: Are you
going to vote on the budget? They'll say: What are you voting on? We'll say: The
budget. And they'll say: Oh, that's good. But when I really look deeper, I say:
Well, what are we really voting on? This budget is like you're sat down to a
meal and they lay it on a placemat and it looks all good, but you don't know
what the meal is and you don't know what's being served. A lovely placemat, but
you don't know what's being served.
There are some good pieces in the budget, but there's
not enough analysis to tell us what is on the plate. I mean, at a bare minimum
you would ask to see the menu. I don't know if we've seen the menu. But, I mean,
to vote on this budget without truly knowing the full analysis behind it, the
full data and the full information, from my point of view, I don't think it's
what the residents of Topsail - Paradise would want me to do in terms of blindly
voting on something we don't have the full details on. Like I said, there are a
number of issues or pieces in this budget that are good, there are a number of
things that are continued on, but there's also a lot of analysis that is absent
and that's something that we really need to have in front of us to make a proper
decision.
I go back to the comments on Terra Nova, you know,
talking risk, talking risky. This is no different. In fact, this is probably
more important as the budget for the whole province. We don't have all of the
background information to vote on this, and so I don't even know what he risks
are because we don't have that information. How are we going to create more
efficient operations? What is going to be done in departments like Health? Don't
know. How much money is going to be saved? What's going to be done here and
there? Not truly outlined there. That's information we need because we all
realize the financial position we are in and we all realize that some big
decisions have to be made, but we also realize that they have to be informed
decisions. To vote on this budget without being fully informed, in my mind,
would not be proper.
We are doing a budget here and we're waiting on some
key reports to come in. I guess the real scare we've gotten is from the
Premier's Moya Greene report and that report certainly puts the scare in all of
us with some of the comments and some of the suggestions, but again, lacking on
detail.
As I've said before, I've had some presentation from
Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis on the Health Accord Newfoundland and
Labrador and I'm encouraged by that. The reason I'm encouraged by that is
because these individuals certainly come across as having a handle on what
they've been asked to do. They certainly seem to have a plan forward. They
certainly seem to be looking towards decisions, programs and services that are
fully documented and supported by data, facts and analysis. The only unfortunate
thing for that is we're not seeing that until December. I look forward to that.
But with this current budget, I do not have the same
level of confidence. It's not that I don't disagree that we need to make some
difficult decisions and that, but it's because I don't know what they're based
on. The detail is not there. There are some parts of it, again, that I certainly
applaud. There are parts there that make sense but, overall, some of the larger
decisions, how are you going to do this, how are you going to move along, some
of that is not there. It's not in the notes.
I look at the budgets over the years for this
government. All governments do it, but I just look at the current government.
When they put out their budget document, there's always a little motto or a
little saying on the cover; there's a title. In 2016, it was
Restoring Fiscal Confidence and
Accountability. That was
2016. Not quite sure we have fiscal confidence – not quite sure.
In 2017, it was
Realizing Our Potential. That's five
years ago now: Realizing Our Potential.
I'm not sure that's happened. In 2018, we're starting to get some nice titles:
Building for Our Future. I can
honestly say I haven't seen any huge steps in building our future. We can go
back to Muskrat Falls and talk about that. I wasn't involved in it when it came
in but, of course, the current government now have six years to look after
mitigation and they've talked to this, how it affects our future generations. I
haven't seen anything happen there.
So we're building
our future and we move into 2019 and we're
Working towards a brighter future. Again, haven't seen the future; now we're
building to a brighter future.
In 2020, it was
Today. Tomorrow. Together. Again, you talk about
The Way Forward; you talk about this. I'm not seeing any huge
accomplishments there. In fact, I'm told – and certainly, if someone can tell me
otherwise – that the family that was on the cover of that document,
Today. Tomorrow. Together., an
immigrant family, and they were praised for being active, I'm told they're no
longer in the province. Now, I stand to be corrected on that, but that's what
I'm told. So Today. Tomorrow. Together.,
we certainly have to start looking at making some real, real change.
Speaking of change, here we are in 2021 and the budget
is Change starts here. After five
years of realizing our future, building our future, building a brighter future,
restoring fiscal confidence, after five years
Change starts here. We're finally to a place where maybe something's
going to start. But again, my doubts, because this particular budget I do not
see the full details that would lead me to believe that change will definitely
start here. I don't see it. Right from this point on, I'm not prepared to vote
on something I don't have the full details on.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It's always a pleasure to speak to some aspect of the
budget, whether it be a money bill, loan, supply. It's a good opportunity to
talk about a variety of things that are going on.
What I thought I would do is summarize the experience
that was the last couple of weeks in Estimates. What I've done is go through
each of the departments that I participated in. In fact, as I mentioned in the
House yesterday, I did miss just the one. I missed the Department of Finance,
but I caught the others. Certainly, it's an excellent way to learn a lot about
how government works, what the minister and their staff are thinking, and it's a
great way to – from my perspective – to explore different policies, how they are
affecting the district I represent in Lake Melville or broader Labrador, or of
course right across the province.
So what I'd like to do is just run through some of the
items. I'm not going to go through them in detail, because there were a lot of
Estimates sessions and I know I only have less than 20 minutes. I'm just going
to sketch on some of them and then comment as I go. Let's start at the beginning
in terms of the book and the budget Estimates.
Digital Government and Service NL: Some of the items
that I brought up when we were going through them that apply to a relatively
small percentage of our population, but it's very much an appreciative one, and
that's the francophone-speaking people of this province.
It was curious, Mr. Speaker, when I was asking the
department – at one time I really enjoyed being the minister responsible for
Francophone Affairs, and the federal government's support, some $350,000, has
not changed to this province in a long, long time. I can remember 2015, '16,
'17, lobbying the then federal minister responsible for the need to look at the
formula, to look at the situation and recognize Newfoundland and Labrador is
doing a lot with a very small and very capable and dedicated crew, but there's
been no increased support for years and years.
It's amazing what they have been able to do, but we
really need to somehow convince the federal government that if they're serious
about fulfilling Charter obligations across this country, all jurisdictions, no
matter how big or small, need to be treated equitably.
Another item that's very important for Labrador, and I
would suspect other rural parts of this province, and that's around electrical
inspections. We often have work sites – and we have a very short construction
season – where if you don't have a Red Seal-endorsed electrical inspector, you
need to have one flown in. I explored with the minister the idea of, perhaps,
engaging a private sector company where somebody would be certified to take a
look at those building sites. It's actually holding up construction. I can look
across Labrador and give you many examples of where things are held up just
because we're not thinking of more clever ways to provide these inspections.
One that's near and dear to my heart, and certainly
broader across the province, and that is on taxi insurance. It was good to see
the various steps that the department is making to reduce rates and pressures on
taxi drivers and owners who need to get those vehicles insured to make sure that
our roads are safe. A lot of good moves there, so I thank them for that.
One lingering issue in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is – and
while it's commendable that some 98 per cent of online registrations and I think
some other features around Motor Vehicle Registration are now done online, there
are still a lot of people that need support. I feel that we need to make sure
those phone lines are available and that people are able to help those who would
prefer just to deal in person or at least have somebody on the other end of a
line instead of a prompt on an online app or something like that.
In the Treasury Board meetings, just one little item,
I've raised it several times, but I am still curious as to whether or not our
province can take advantage of this spike in building materials, particularly
around wood, whether or not we, as a Crown, could be making more as we sell our
wood products, the stumpage; the stumpage royalties. I see opportunities to do
it. Again, I point out Alberta which has just recently done this. They more than
doubled their stumpage rate. It's represented millions and millions of dollars
to the coffers of their Treasury. Guess what? It does not affect the end
retailer because it's frankly the processors that are able to charge a very high
fee right now for their products and the raw materials. We're basically –
relatively speaking – giving them away.
In terms of Public Procurement: It's an interesting
aspect, I think, for many of us to think about. It's one I do believe government
is sensitive of. I was once responsible for that department as well. It's
packaging and bundling the opportunities for tenders, for bidding, and making
sure that where there are local service opportunities and where they can be
bundled appropriately that that is, in fact, done. There's nothing worse than
seeing capability being developed in Labrador or another rural part of this
province, only to see an opportunity show up on the doorstep, yet that local
capacity is frankly just left out of the bidding process all together. They have
to run around and try to figure out who is going to win this contract and then
try to make sure that we, as a government, and they, as a successful bidder,
think to engage local staff and local services. Boy, we continue to struggle
with this one.
I don't know, I look to the Impact Benefit Agreements
that Indigenous organization, for example, has established. Voisey's Bay is a
prime example of what was frankly a very successful negotiation. You look at
that project now, it's been operating for well over 20 years. I remember being
in the room when both signatories to the province and the company agreed with
their membership to support the project, and the celebration. The fact that that
deal was done right. It has continued to prove very successful. I think we have
a lot of things to learn there.
Under Transportation and Infrastructure: I will
continue to speak about Route 520. I can appreciate the pressure that the
minister is under; however, we did have this road identified as a priority two
years ago and with the fact that the budget remains the same, the highway is
continuing to get worse. I can only hope that this gets addressed immediately
and we can start getting some work done. I know there is some recent tender
calls for some bridge work, and we're not going to turn that away. The bridges
certainly also need to be tended too, but I can tell you what's really bad is
the asphalt and the rollercoaster of a ride that is between Sheshatshiu and
Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
I also want to continue to speak about the fact that we
have some 1,800 kilometres of Trans-Labrador Highway and we really don't have
any emergency or other convenience services between those communities. Some of
those gaps are as great as 400 kilometres. I challenge anyone, when they get in
their vehicles at the end of the week and they leave here, just to think about
that. You would set sail for Gander or points further west and if you needed to
stop for a washroom, for gas, for any communications knowing that it would not
be there for you: that's why I will continue to speak about this.
I am pleased, and I want to mention his name again, the
ADM in Marine Services, John Baker. There are a lot of great staff out there,
John is just a guy that I happen to work a lot with. He's a guy who listens and
is very available to so many of the issues that I have to deal with. The moves
around the Black Tickle ferry, and I just know each spring I will get the same
kinds of calls from people who used to live in Black Tickle, they want to make
this annual pilgrimage home and knowing that the ferry will be running this year
– I think it goes on the 25th of June, which is the time that is actually
convenient for returning residents to go back and set up for the summer, it will
actually work very well for them. I thank the department for that accommodation.
Another study that is very near and dear to my heart, I
have a lot of experience around it, there are two: the Nain Airstrip. If you've
ever had to land in an aircraft in Nain, it is something that will get your
attention: even on the calmest of days. Thank goodness we have very experienced
and capable pilots that fly along our coast for us because I can tell you, it is
not for the faint of heart. If you have a strong wind and a predominant wind
coming out of the west and you're swinging in there and you have to turn your
nose in one direction and then at the last minute suddenly turn to hit that
runway. We are just very fortunate that we haven't had a serious incident. We
really need to address that. So I make that plug for there.
Also, if you look at the map you wouldn't believe it,
but I know the route very well, from North West River to Postville it actually
is a very straightforward route along that direction, and I've flown it many
times. While I'm glad to see progress being made on the feasibility study – and
I remember my colleague from Torngat Mountains was asking: Is this a
pre-feasibility or a feasibility study? I'm not sure we got a good answer. The
fact of the matter is let this be the study from which tenders can be called to
start that work.
Under Justice and Public Safety: It's good to see the
progress going on at the Labrador Correctional Centre. There are substantial
millions of dollars being allocated for the expansion. It's also really
important that in addition to providing, now, accommodations for – women who
need to be incarcerated traditionally have been going to Clarenville. Now, with
the completion of this work, they will be able to, at least, stay in Labrador
where their family supports will be there for them and other cultural supports.
It is that very point, on the cultural supports, that
is so important and I've been witness to some of these special sessions where
people give of their time to go down and provide that cultural – it's almost a
therapy when you've been able to witness, whether it be cleaning a partridge or
a ptarmigan, making snowshoes or just talking about life on the land and the
healing, therapeutic aspects that can come from that. It's very important for
people who are struggling to find a way in life.
Sentencing circles was another point that I spoke
about. I think the minister will be interested to, hopefully, see and experience
others that will be lobbying for these kinds of opportunities. I feel that they
could really help, especially – it's not going to help overnight, but over the
long term it will be really important.
With Environment and Climate Change: Another one of my
favourite departments and one that I know very well, both politically and in my
previous professional life. We talked a lot about the rationale for the
flood-risk mapping. Why did we spend $1 million completing such a comprehensive
study, such a state-of-the-art study if we are not going to really work with its
conclusions and work with what it's telling us? I challenge the department to
please consider ways to sit down with the residents and explain exactly what the
findings mean, what it means for their livelihood and what it means for their
property. I believe we need to carry on the dialogue.
Just a few weeks ago, again, as the water started to
rise and suddenly the panic hit. We've got a huge river; we've got the
province's largest river flowing, unfortunately, into an estuary situation where
we've got a very fragile village in the lower parts of what we call the valley,
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where the shoreline is being eroded away. We need to get
in there. I'm willing to work with the minister and his department and we'll see
what we can do to address that.
Contaminated sites were another aspect. I just want to
make a plug for – so much of the debate yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, for
Terra Nova was around the transition. My colleague for St. John's Centre spoke
about the importance of getting that transition plan right. Well, there's a
really interesting initiative that The Harris Centre has set up – I worked with
them very closely last year when that was going on – climate change, economy and
society. There are eight sessions that are being held with a variety of
stakeholders.
The interesting part about this is that you have both
industrial proponents, you have oil and gas people and you have people with an
environmental background, and they're collectively addressing key points such
as: How does a jurisdiction, which produces 5.6 per cent of the oil in this
country – how do we transfer now successfully with all of these amazing reserves
we have offshore. How do we transfer to a situation where we can recognize the
climate is changing dramatically? Moving to net zero in 2050? Well you know
what, we need to start moving to net zero like yesterday. Anyway, a lot of these
questions are being tackled. I would encourage the department to continue to
support them and perhaps, most importantly, to pay attention to the conclusions
coming out of those discussions.
With Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, I spoke about
the stumpage rates and enforcement officers, and making sure we have them
deployed at the right places at the right time. The hunting that's going on of
caribou, south of where I live, south of the Churchill River, Mishta-shipu by
folks from Quebec, is becoming – not is becoming, it has become – a very serious
problem. So much of the caribou and those small little herds – I used to fly
them back in the 1980s and '90s; things like the Dominion Lake herd and the St.
Augustin herd – they don't even
exist anymore.
I'm very concerned
that any woodland caribou that are left down there, if there are in fact any
leftover in the Birchy Lake area – I was thinking they're basically gone.
Perhaps there are a few animals but given the resources that are being deployed
to find them, and make a stand politically between our provinces, we really need
to fix this out. My recommendation there to the minister is to re-establish the
Labrador Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. It's filled with bright minds from both
Quebec, Labrador and the federal government, as well as other stakeholders. I
feel that that could provide him with a lot of clean and clear direction as to
how to move forward. It's a tough, tangly situation but the discussion has to go
on in the boardroom, not out in the field with loaded rifles.
I'm very pleased to see the movement on the
Animal Health and Protection Act, that
the entire act is being reviewed. My CA is a senior person with the SPCA in
Labrador. I get to see upfront, close and personal the challenges that the SPCA
and other organizations have around animal abuse and the need to take care of
our four-legged friends. I'm glad for that review.
With Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we had good
discussion. I think the challenge that we have as a government, and folks in
this House of Assembly really, is how do we and what do we and where do 46,000
residents of our province who are living in unincorporated districts – how do we
properly provide services to them and how do they, in fairness, provide their
own financial support for those services.
Under Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, I am
curious still to understand the demise of Welcome NL. I saw it as a great
initiative. It disappeared, frankly, about two years ago. It's meant to help
those new Canadians find employers and readily settle into this province and,
better yet, stay.
Also, I'm frustrated with so much of the provincial
certification programs, engineering, medical care and so on, where we have – I
get off that plane, sometimes on a Sunday night, and I probably have an engineer
from North Africa or Eastern Europe who's driving a taxi because that's the only
service that we will recognize them being capable of, despite years of training.
Some of them have even served as professors that I've met. I've met a pile of
them. I have their names. They're very frustrated. I really feel we need to find
a better system. There has to be mentoring that can happen to get these people
in the workforce.
Under Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, again, I
want to just compliment the department for pulling off – and I look at this
House of Assembly. Under the pandemic, so much of things that were planned over
the last 16 months or so where you've heard the common refrain of: delayed by
the pandemic, delayed by the pandemic. Well, guess what? That Caribou monument,
the final one in Gallipoli, was not delayed by the pandemic. A dedicated
international team, multi-organizational, all threw their efforts at that. It
was done and it's a beautiful job. I just can't wait to see a delegation from
this province go and join our Turkish friends with an unveiling.
I also want to put a quick plug in for Expedition 51º.
It's a bit of French and English at the same time. It's a combination of Quebec
and Destination Labrador looking at joint branding around tourism and getting
our link together as we reach into Eastern Canada. Really important.
CSSD: A really big challenge is the number of vacancies
under our social worker caseload. It is really high in Labrador. The department
informed me that we have 71 vacancies right now for social workers. We really
need to get that figured out.
Under Education, early childhood educators: The big
issue right now – and I've raised it as a petition – we need in-person training.
We have spaces; we just spent a lot of money as a government to put up Pumpkin
House and helped other facilities get in place. We don't have people to run
them. I'm trying to get an estimate. It is somewhere between 100 and 200
families with their children, waiting to get into a regulated daycare facility.
We really have to get that figured out.
Health and Community Services: I didn't mean to save it
for last but, obviously, it's the number one challenge for any of our MHAs. I
thank everybody. I thank all the team for all that they're doing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great honour to speak today on the main
motion of the budget on behalf of the constituents of Placentia West - Bellevue
that I'm so proud to be in this House to represent in this 50th General
Assembly.
The budget really affects us all. Having a big district
like I have, it really affects us in many different ways. One of the things I
would like to touch on is how industrial my district is. If we can get some of
the industry back up and running to full capacity, I think we'd be well on our
way to very much a growth economy.
I just did a petition on Bull Arm; there is Vale in
Long Harbour. We have the refinery and the state-of-the-art fish plant there in
Arnold's Cove with major investment. We have Grieg down in Marystown; we have
the Cow Head facility in Marystown. None of these are really up to capacity.
Mr. Speaker, these entities and these industrial
facilities were in trouble long before COVID. So it's not really something we
can blame on COVID, but it is something that we need to come together and make
sure that we can utilize our assets to the benefit of our province, as opposed
to selling off our assets just to keep the lights on.
At the end of the day, somebody can offer me $10,000
for my $5,000 car, but I still have to get home. So the $10,000 is really not
much good to me at that point if I still need something to drive. Yes, I can go
out and buy another car, but in the meantime why not utilize the one to the best
of my ability and get the most out of it that I already have.
We do have great infrastructure, but the biggest asset
that we have in our province is our workers. Our workers leave this province en
masse all the time to go and be rotational workers and stuff like that. They're
the best of the best in these companies that are hiring them throughout the
world. So if we can get up and running with our industry, then obviously these
are people that would love to come back and not be rotational workers. I don't
think they'd have a problem being a rotational worker from, let's say,
Terrenceville going to Bull Arm or somebody from Chance Cove working in the
refinery.
So like I said, it affects us all. It's something that
we have to focus on because, right now, really what we need is to improve the
provincial coffers to afford these budgets. We're just north of $8.5 billion on
a budget that, for a lot of people, it's hard to wrap their head around that
kind of numbers. I think it's incumbent on us all to find these efficiencies, as
was determined through our Estimates for CSSD. Because when you have the most
vulnerable people in the province that need services, then we need to have these
wraparound services and tertiary services that they can avail of at a moment's
notice. Because that's the way things come up. It's not like we can plan for
something that is acute two months out.
So like I said, it's good to see the new programs. The
minister actually talked about the new transportation program for low-income
families, seniors and people living with disabilities. It's a very good hand up
for these people, because now they're able to avail of some of the programming
that's in their area and be part of probably their 50-plus club or be able to go
out and do some seniors' yoga on the soccer field or whatever.
We've learned from COVID, we just have to make sure
that we give our people a chance to succeed and enjoy their life to the best of
their ability. Again, that comes down to, for our seniors, having help with
their eyes, their ears and their teeth. I think that's incumbent on us all. I
never ever would have imagined that somebody would fall below the threshold,
after retirement, of not having insurance. That kind of bothers me and I think
we could be better. Because like I said before, these are the people that
trail-blazed for us and gave us an opportunity to be here. I think it's
incumbent on us all to certainly have that respect and see what we can do for
our seniors.
One of the biggest issues I really have with the budget
is that it's kind of carried over from last year, which is somewhat
understandable. But to not have any cost-benefit analysis for some of the things
that we're asking about, it's hard to ratify this contract based on the vague
information that was in some of the different sectors. I will note that one of
the initiatives that I've been fighting for since day one in here is the Wi-Fi
and cell service. To see that kind of an initiative now, brings us that much
closer to the 21st century, which we're already 21 years into.
I guess I'm a firm believer that if these big companies
– we talk about these multinational, profitable oil companies then we should
probably talk about these national media companies that are certainly seeing
numbers in the billions as well. They can't just come to our province and go
where the concentration of people are to get the largest stipend. I think it's
an opportunity for government to let them know that if they want to do business
here, then they have to really consider doing business outside the overpass as
well and not just the big centres.
Just from a personal side, we're digitizing government,
everything is coming down to emails and send your form via email or text or
anything like that, but we're not realizing that not everybody in the province
has that opportunity, just for the simple fact that the services are not there,
Mr. Speaker. I think that we are in a day and age where it's kind of second
nature that we would have these kind of entities in place so that we can avail
of them.
Like I said on a personal side, for personal households
is what I mean. We're sending kids home to do their education online. That's
kind of at a disadvantage for some kids, for the simple fact that they don't
have the availability of Wi-Fi and cell coverage. It's pretty difficult for them
to carry on and have the same experience or opportunity. Let's say a kid in
Grade 11 in my district or a kid in Grade 11 in St. John's, probably having two
different experiences based on the Wi-Fi and cell coverage. That's just one
entity of it.
Another side, I guess, that I looked at this from was
the business side of it. When you talk about the business side of Wi-Fi and cell
coverage, then that's second nature to them. It's probably that they're looking
at what the next best thing is for communication. There's nobody coming here and
taking a drive in a car to check out the Bull Arm site and not want to be on
their phone for that hour-and-a-half drive. They're not going down to Bull Arm
and getting on the pay phone to call back to their company to see if it's a good
deal or not. Like I said, from a business perspective, it's incumbent on us all
to get those communication services in place so that some of this redundancy or
bureaucracy doesn't happen between these business-to-business sales.
One of the bigger ones, I guess, from my side of things
for Wi-Fi and cell coverage is really the virtual medical care. It's something
that I can see being very prevalent in our society quite soon. Virtual medical
care, not everybody needs to go to see a doctor physically to get an update or
report or anything like that, so I think with the investment in Wi-Fi and cell
coverage, we're actually going to free up some of our doctors' time and be able
to probably get more people in to see them.
The issue, really, is that we're in a pandemic and
we've cut back some of those services. It would be nice that now that we have a
reopening plan and stuff like that, we can eliminate this epidemic we've created
inside of a pandemic in the fact that people's needs didn't go away with the
pandemic. They still need to get in and get their tests and their X-rays and
their scans and all this kind of stuff. I know we want to protect our front-line
workers, but we have to make sure that we are getting these timely appointments
adhered to and make sure that people are getting the care. We've okayed all this
money for the health care department; let's make sure that we're getting the
proper outcomes. I think with Wi-Fi and cell coverage being prevalent to all,
that will be a lot easier in the very rural parts of our province.
Another big one for me – and I volunteered all of my
life. I have 16 volunteer fire departments in my district and Wi-Fi and cell
coverage would be so much more important to them just knowing who's on the
scene. As we try and regionalize some of our services, it would be no sense that
we won't be able to be in contact with somebody that was out on the highway. The
Trans-Canada part is spotty in places, but at least there's a great prevalence
of cell coverage.
But, like I mentioned yesterday, I would love to work
on the Burin Peninsula, especially with my colleague from Burin - Grand Bank,
despite our strip or anything like that, because me and the MHA for Burin -
Grand Bank have known each other for a long time and have had a very cordial
relationship. I look forward to working with him on that because a lot of the
people in his district are good friends of mine as well and a lot of people in
my district are quite familiar with the former mayor of St. Lawrence.
Like I said, I want to make sure that we're all working
together to make sure that we can bring these services to the residents of the
province to make life easier, I guess, because we are in a digital age and
there's no sense in talking about these services until we wrap them around
everybody in the province.
The big thing that we talked about this year is tourism
and how the tourism operators have had such a hard go of it, really, because of
COVID and everybody being shut down. But one thing I did notice in the last year
in my district is that our walking trails are becoming some of the highly
sought-after destinations in the province, especially Chance Cove. If anybody
hasn't had a chance to get out to the Chance Cove trail, I would highly
recommend it. I did it a couple of weeks ago, about a month ago, probably,
myself and my assistance, actually. We're probably not in the best of shape for
a young fella and an older fella. In the meantime, we would certainly do it
again. I don't know if we would need to take shortcuts next time.
In the meantime, it was so beautiful and so picturesque
that it really made our day. It was really a good hike for us, for sure. I
commend the people in Chance Cove that are working on the trail. There is some
more money being infused, I believe, soon. The advancements that have been made
on that trail since I became aware of it, I guess, in May 2019, has been pretty
tremendous.
Just talking about Chance Cove for a second, there are
some certainly great challenges when it comes to their roads, but their priority
when I first got in was their water. I do get some compliments, I guess, that
it's nice to turn on the tap and be able to drink the water, but now it's turned
into fixing the roads again. I'm here for you Chance Cove. I'm working on it and
when the minister and I meet, your roads are certainly on the list as well.
The other trails are Otter Rub and the Bordeaux Walking
Trail. There's a new trail, Center Hill in Sunnyside. The Cleary Hiking Trail in
CBC. You can go and probably stay at the Fiddler's Green or you can stay at The
Killick. There are a couple of opportunities; there's the Arnold's Cove Inn as
well. You can get three or four trails done there in those few days, if you want
to stay in the area.
There are lots of beautiful attractions that, like I
said, just get out and explore. Actually, in Arnold's Cove, they have a really
good walk around the town with their app about the homes that were brought in
from the islands, Mr. Speaker. It's quite interesting because as you get to each
destination the app actually tells you the story of that house and the people
from that house and the reasons for coming over and stuff like that. Right in
Southern Harbour, we have Paddy Miller's house, it was the first one brought
across Placentia Bay.
My buddy Dale Ryan, who's an artist originally from
Southern Harbour, did a depiction of Paddy Miller's house coming across the
harbour. I was lucky enough to be able to avail of one of those off my good
friend. Consequently, a lot of his art is in many different parts of the world
that I've sent out to different friends and stuff like that. I commend him on
that. I know he has a new series ready to go. If anybody likes good Newfoundland
artists, check out Mr. Dale Ryan. I think you'll be quite impressed.
Like I said, when you have a large district, not only
is it industrial, but it comes down to having a lot of towns. A lot of these
towns have the same needs, whether it's roads, care for seniors, certainly Wi-Fi
and cell service. While we do have a pretty industrial district, it's incumbent
on us to realize that it's not just industry. It is tourism and it is a lot of
really great spots to shop and stuff in my district.
When you go down to the Marystown area, it's quite
beautiful. Anybody that goes to Marystown, I would recommend you go look at
Marystown from the Marymount. As I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you've probably seen it
from that perspective, which it really opens up your eyes to the size of
Marystown and the beauty of the longest ice-free harbour in North America.
That's a pretty good moniker to have. Like I said, around that area the people
make it a million times nicer. So anybody that goes down to the Marystown area
or anywhere down the Burin Peninsula, stop off at the Tea Rose there that the
Placentia West Development Association has to offer. They have the EcoMuseum
there. It's a national museum that was acknowledged about a year and a half ago
or probably two years ago now. It's beautiful.
Like I said, there are lots of areas to avail of in my
district. For anybody that's planning a staycation or anything like that, come
stay and have fun because the people in our district are the real resource here.
I'm here to work with every town. I treat everybody the
same, and in saying that I don't take things personally. Anybody can come to me
with anything. I don't judge people and I represent everybody with the same
integrity and respect –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J.
DWYER:
–
as I do represent them here in this House and at all their functions.
The last thing I will say is that I hope that the Bull
Arm site will get a long-term proponent soon. Hopefully, the minister will be
talking to the many groups that are interested in taking over this site.
The one thing that I always say, if you can be anything
in this world, be kind. Because you don't know what somebody dealt with
yesterday, you don't know what somebody's dealing with today and you don't know
what's facing them tomorrow. So if we can be anything in this world, please, be
kind.
The last thing I'll leave on is that I want to
acknowledge, again, Pride Month. I think everybody deserves the opportunity to
live their best life. Let's give everybody that opportunity. Let's look out for
our seniors, our people living with disabilities and let's get our industry back
and running so we can get these programs availed of.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J.
WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's indeed a privilege to be able to speak in this
hon. House today to represent the people of the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis. I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate the confidence that they
put in me to have me here and represent them.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to speak on the
Estimates that we went through last week. As a new Member to this House, it was
certainly an experience to sit in Estimates. I had the privilege of being on the
Social Services Committee. I'd like to first of all thank the MHA for Placentia
- St. Mary's for doing such a great job of chairing those Estimates. I have to
say it was very professional and I'd like to acknowledge that.
Thanks to my colleague from Harbour Main, I was
nominated as Vice-Chair. I very much appreciate the Member for Placentia - St.
Mary's for doing such a great job that I didn't have to step in, Mr. Speaker. I
have to say kudos to her and great job on doing that.
I had the privilege of sitting in on all the Estimates
under Social Services: Justice and Public Safety, Education, Health, CSSD and,
of course, Municipal Affairs. I'd like to thank all the ministers and, of
course, their staff for the planning and preparation that went in to all of
those Estimates. A professional crew, no doubt.
My predecessor Mr. Parsons said: If you want to learn,
listen to the staff. They had some great information that we shared. Of course,
there were great questions asked by the Opposition, by the Members of the Third
Party, by the independents, no doubt. It was a great learning experience for me.
I do appreciate all of the Estimates that I sat in on – I also sat in on others,
of course, but today I'm going to focus on Municipal Affairs, my shadow Cabinet.
As I said, this was a new process for me; I did learn
quite a lot. I would like to thank the hon. minister for her work done on the
Estimates as well, as to members of her department. With respect to the
information that I requested during the Estimates that were followed up with,
with respect to Municipal Operating Grants, the gas tax approvals, the Special
Assistance Grants and the Community Enhancement Employment Program, all of these
are essential to all municipalities across our province, Mr. Speaker. They are
quite important.
Municipalities rely and depend upon these various
funding opportunities for the benefit of their residents and for the advancement
of their municipalities. I do thank the minister and her staff for providing
that information and we will go through that as well.
I have spoken in the House several times with respect
to several areas of concern that I'm hoping that the minister and her department
will address. Of course, the updating of the Municipalities Act, that new
legislation is required, no doubt about it. Municipalities are operating under
old legislation. I have heard from many municipalities across the province in my
former life as mayor and my current life as MHA with respect to the need for
updating that, and I do appreciate the minister taking that under her advisement
and coming up with new legislation, hopefully, by this fall.
The second was the mandatory municipal training for
councillors. As we are all aware, when we come into this hon. House we do have
mandatory training for Members of the House of Assembly – which I agree with. I
am advocating for the municipal training for councillors to be mandatory as
well. I am sure the minister and her department officials – even under the
pandemic that we're in now, hopefully by this fall, some of it will be released
or slackened up. But even with the pandemic, we can make sure that all municipal
councillors are trained in municipal training and have the proper legislation
there as well.
Mr. Speaker, as we went through not just municipal and
provincial affairs, but all of the Estimates, COVID kept coming up again and
again with respect to the different numbers from the budgeted and the actuals.
The departments had to shift on the fly many times to mitigate with issues.
Again, I will speak to municipalities. They did have a
plan in place. Of course, there were extra expenditures at times, there was less
at other times with travel and meetings and what have you; but I would like to
see the minister continue forward with looking at savings in her department with
respect to continuing on with the plans that they have, how they dealt with
COVID, what was put in place. It was encouraging to see that the minister was
willing to work towards change. There are many towns in our province who are
looking at regionalization and many towns have already put that forward on their
own. So I did speak with the minister with respect to that, the importance of
regionalization, as many towns are struggling.
I spoke about those grants and approvals earlier. They
are key, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but we have many towns in our province who are
struggling. They have increased costs with respect to the rising cost of lumber
and building materials. Some of their projects are not getting approved. Or if
they are approved, they can't move forward with them because they can't afford
to do so. That's always a concern, Mr. Speaker, when we look at municipalities
and what they need to do to improve the lives of their residents.
Of course, when we're looking at our municipalities, we
can't afford to have a population decline, as was spoken to by my colleague from
Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, we have a smaller
tax base and we have to rely more upon the grants and subsidies that are there
from the province and her department. It's something that we all have to keep in
mind and be very mindful moving forward for all municipalities throughout our
province.
I'd like to touch on the municipal elections coming up
this fall. Of course, I've spoken about it before in this House, but I'd like to
speak to it again with respect to the importance of municipal government and
municipal leaders and the work that they do on the ground level.
I do know that municipalities are looking forward to
change with respect to the way the election is going to be done this fall. The
minister and her department are working towards that. I hope that it can be
facilitated in time with respect to a mail-in ballot, if that's the way that
it's going to be approved. I do know that there's going to be a fair bit of work
that has to be done on it. I will, of course, ask the pertinent questions to the
minister and her department going forward to make sure that it is certainly the
case and that it would be there for the benefit of all people so that all
residents of all municipalities have the opportunity to vote and to cast their
ballots. We don't want to see their struggle in order to do so.
I'd like to thank the minister for that, with respect
to the Estimates, and all ministers that were involved, that I took part in.
Mr. Speaker, today I had the opportunity to visit Holy
Trinity High School in Torbay. I had the invite to attend their pride
flag-raising ceremony. I had the opportunity to be there with the Grade 9
students and the administration and staff. It was a quiet, short, but powerful
flag-raising ceremony. We all know what's going in the news this past week with
respect to the taking down of the pride flags. In one instance – I believe it
was in Mount Pearl – the flag was destroyed. Being there today and seeing those
Grade 9 students and listening to them, no doubt it's an impressionable age and
we need to encourage everyone that we are all equal, no doubt about it. I want
to thank them again for their invitation.
It was great to see Constable Krista Fagan from the RNC
there as well, with support dog Stella. Stella was there to meet and greet all
the Grade 9 students and staff. So I'd just like to send a shout-out to the Holy
Trinity High School administration and staff for that pride flag raising today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
WALL:
Thank you.
Just to touch on Route 20, the roadwork that's being
done in my district, Mr. Speaker. As I said last week, it is ongoing. I viewed
the sites today that are being worked on in the Town of Flatrock and the Town of
Torbay. Work is coming along great I have to say. It's pleasing to see that work
is being done. I just wish that my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port
with Cold Brook would have the work done as well. So I'll just get a plug in for
my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port with respect to that work.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that no doubt there's much
more work to be done. I do realize the parameters we're under, but we do what –
we do have to keep in mind with respect to that the work that's there. My
colleague for Ferryland has a petition; I believe he had a petition today with
respect to the roads in his district. We have to keep that in mind, the work
that needs to be done and the important work.
Also, just to touch on my colleague for Ferryland, he
spoke earlier this week about emergency response times, ambulances and what have
you in his district. Mr. Speaker, being a district on the Northeast Avalon one
would think that we have no issue with response times, but that's certainly not
the case. In my former life as mayor, I've witness 25 to 30 minutes of a
response time from Eastern Health to my Town of Pouch Cove. It was because of
that, that we as a municipality stepped up – with, of course, the lead from the
volunteer fire department – in order to respond to Code 4 medical calls.
That being done in our town has certainly made a
difference, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the service that we provide to the
residents. I do know that the response times are much shorter now with respect
to our department responding. It's certainly great to know that we have those
responders there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
The
volume level here is at six and I need it brought back down to four.
Thank you.
J.
WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.
With respect to the emergency response time, I do want
to commend the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department and the Torbay Volunteer
Fire Department for their efforts in reducing response times for those who are
requiring Code 4 medical calls. So it's not just an outside-the-Avalon issue,
Mr. Speaker.
I understand that Eastern Health at times is strapped
with respect to the calls they receive, with respect to the backup that they
have from St. John's regional. This is why these two municipalities put in place
the level of commitment that's required in order for fire departments to do Code
4 medical calls. It's made such a huge difference in my district. Again, with a
budget of $561,000 from the Town of Torbay and $200,000 from the Town of Pouch
Cove, they are able to do that with the commitment from their members. I'd just
like to give a shout-out to all those who are involved and to say in this hon.
House that's not just a rural issue. Response time is, of course, crucial and
it's being felt, I'm sure, throughout all districts in our beautiful province.
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board recognized Public Service Week. I'd like to do that
as well. Of course, being a former public servant, I recognize the importance of
celebrating that week and putting that back onto the servants who deserve our
respect. We have a lot of hard-working members in our public service. They just
worked for the last 18 months through a pandemic. Their efforts and dedication
to their positions have to be applauded no doubt.
It's difficult when you cannot stay home – and I did
speak about that earlier in the House – when you have to go to work, when you
cannot work from home and you have to report and to serve. I'd just like to
thank those hard-working public servants for the work that they do. I do hope
that this government will keep in mind, if there are changes coming to the
public sector with respect to workers or the numbers of workers – that we keep
that in mind as we go forward for what the province needs to operate in a safe
manner going forward and we keep that in mind as we do celebrate Public Service
Week. We do know that the public service proudly serve their province in all
areas of what they do.
Mr. Speaker, I know we spoke many times this week here
in the House on the Terra Nova Project. I'd just like to recognize the many
residents that have reached out to me in my District of Cape St. Francis about
the importance of this project. I do like the term: We'll leave no stone
unturned. I do hope that the government are truly following through with that.
To those who have reached out to me and to my colleagues here in the Opposition,
we will continue to ask the important questions. No doubt, that is our job, to
ask questions. We will continue to do that.
I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone here in this hon.
House has heard the personal stories with respect to oil and gas workers. During
the campaign, I was campaigning in Torbay and I spoke to a young couple who both
are in the oil and gas sector. Of course, good jobs, good paying jobs, you live
according to your means and they were living quite comfortably for the last
number of years. Having been out of work for the past 18 months has certainly
made a difference to the money that they have put away to their nest egg. That
has been depleted and now the process has begun of selling what they can sell
around them in order to stay here in our province.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, they're down to their house and
their vehicle. One vehicle has been sold to try to have the money to stay here
in our beautiful province. The last thing that's going to be sold now is the
house; they're keeping the vehicle so they can drive to the Mainland, to Fort
McMurray. That's a sad story and I know it tugs at the heartstrings. It mightn't
be numbers, or facts or dollars and cents, but I do know that when I'm standing
on their step and they have tears in their eyes – they want to stay here but
they can't because they don't have work because this vessel is not producing
right now – that speaks volumes.
I can tell you I've witnessed it too many times. This
is only one instance. I've witnessed it too many times during the election and
I've heard from many people since the election about the oil and gas. I can tell
you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said
yesterday that revenues from the oil and gas sector to this province is crucial.
That's true. There's no more truer statement than that. It is crucial when
you're looking at our budget and what we have to face.
The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology said
they're negotiating in the best interests of the residents of the province. I
firmly believe that the minister is doing that – I do. We, on this side of the
House, can ask the questions and try to get answers, but I do believe that
there's no one in this hon. House that's not operating or doing the best that
they can for this. I know that, but it's very little consolation when it comes
down to having the conversations on the doorstep or, as some people in this hon.
House say, on the bridge with respect to the people who are involved, who are
impacted by this oil and gas sector and the lack of work right now with respect
to the Terra Nova FPSO.
The Premier has said that the table has been set. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it has, because it's going to have to be quite the
spread to bring forward another partner or another business here in this
province if the Terra Nova Project is not signed and a deal done.
So how long will we have to wait for the province for
the next one to come across? I don't know, but I do hope that the table is going
to continue to be set moving forward because, if not, we're going to be in a
dire strait when it comes to the income from the oil and gas and what that's
going to make on the bottom line for our budget here in our province.
I do want to say to all those who have reached out to
me: Thank you for reaching out to me. I thank all the workers in the oil and gas
sector throughout our province and their families, because it is just as taxing
on the family members as it is the workers themselves. All of them have
contributed to the prosperity to our beautiful province, Mr. Speaker. That
cannot be lost as we go forward.
I'm hopeful that the deal will be signed. It is going
to make or break a lot of lives in our province. I do want to just take a moment
to speak about that and their importance and to thank all of those workers in
the oil and gas sector who contribute to the prosperity of our province, and
have over the years, and I hope it will continue going forward.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time. I thank you for
your patience and your protection at times. I look forward to speaking again in
this hon. House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today is a very, very important day for
the people of the province. It is also a very important day for the people of
the District of Harbour Main.
I can first of all say that, as I have stated before in
the House, there is much concern and worry by my constituents and the
tradespeople who work in the oil and gas industry and those specifically
impacted by the Terra Nova potential abandonment. That is what we are waiting to
hear today, Mr. Speaker, the fate of that project will, in all likelihood, be
determined by the end of the day, unless there is an extension.
Mr. Speaker, the people in the District of Harbour Main
and others in other districts in the province that have workers working on this
project are feeling the uncertainty, they are feeling the financial stress, and,
Mr. Speaker, this stress is very real.
Mr. Speaker, in an effort to try to understand what's
been happening here with respect to the Terra Nova Project – it is a complex
matter. We do recognize that the government doesn't have an easy task here.
We're all, I think, reasonable people and will acknowledge that.
In an effort for me to understand this topic, I've
spoken to many of my constituents who are tradespeople who work in the industry,
who have worked on the FPSO. They've helped me understand more about what this
is. I'm not an engineer. I'm not an oil worker. I don't have that background, so
it's been a learning curve to say the least. I've spoken to engineers to try to
understand. I've read many things about the oil industry and, as well, in
general about the green economy in an effort to be able to relate and to
understand better for my constituents about what's happening here and to,
hopefully, be able to communicate to them what I'm learning in the House of
Assembly and from government.
Mr. Speaker, on that note, I've tried to break it down
for me and for my constituents to understand it. I've broken it down, really,
into two categories: what we know and what we don't know.
What do we know? We do know that oil will be with us
for decades to come, and most people believe that, eventually, oil will be
phased out. That is what we know. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that green energy
is important and that there is a future for green energy. No one is disputing
that either. For now, my research and what I've learned and listened here in the
House and from other sources, oil and the fossil fuel-based energy is needed and
the demand is there.
Mr. Speaker, what does the real evidence say? This is
just in general terms from what I've learned. I stand to be corrected. I have
learned that the evidence says that there are about three types of energy. The
energies typically promoted in renewable mandates are solar, wind and biofuels.
The evidence is equivocal that solar, wind and biomass energy can meaningfully
supplement fossil fuel energy, let alone replace it. There is conflicting
evidence on that, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe in the future these industries can overcome the
obstacles which exist with respect to the solar, wind and biomass energy; the
obstacles that currently exist that do not make it cheap, plentiful or reliable.
But if in the future that can happen then that's fantastic. I don't think anyone
will disagree with that.
Mr. Speaker, our offshore oil industry provides
opportunity for us here in this province and it makes good, smart sense to
pursue responsible development of this resource. We must develop it, I would
argue. Not only do I argue that, but the PERT also argues that with Moya Greene
at the helm. Her view on this, and the PERT had said, that the window for
investment in the offshore has narrowed to as little as 10 years, and if
development in the province does not happen within these timelines, considerable
wealth will be stranded hindering the province's ability to improve its fiscal
situation and limiting its ability to fund a transition to a green economy.
So, Mr. Speaker, we know that from what Dame Moya
Greene has stated and the report. So it does make good sense to pursue
responsible development of this resource.
Why does it make sense? Because we have to pay off a
massive debt – a massive debt. We have to support our important services. This
industry, Mr. Speaker, and specifically the Terra Nova, is so important to us
that it continues to put more money in our Treasury. We saw from the budget that
$1.4 billion of increased oil and gas royalties from the Terra Nova. We also
know that there are 80 million additional barrels of oil out there to 2031.
Imagine, 80 million recoverable barrels.
Mr. Speaker, we hear from the government that, well,
it's 85 per cent and there's only 15 per cent. But I would suggest that we're
looking at the wrong equation here. What about that 15 per cent? That 80 million
recoverable barrels, what does that mean in terms of profit?
What we also know, specifically, about the Terra Nova,
Mr. Speaker, is there are profitable reserves. There are profitable oil reserves
in that sea floor. The hydrocarbons are there. They are there; we know that to
be true. That is factual.
Terra Nova, we also know, has been profitable for us.
As the Premier stated even this morning, yes, it's been profitable for the oil
companies. I find it somewhat curious when I hear the tone of the Premier when
he says: The multimillion-dollar profitable oil companies. Bad oil, in other
words. Well, Mr. Speaker, those profitable oil companies have also provided much
opportunity for the province and have provided much prosperity for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we cannot forget that. I think that has to
be acknowledged and recognized.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, we know 80 million additional barrels of
oil are out there in the sea floor. We know we don't have to drill new wells to
get that oil. The hard part has already been done. All of the infrastructure is
there. Some engineers I've talked to have said that the subsea plumbing is in
place; it's just waiting for us to extract it. If we walk away from that Terra
Nova Project we're leaving untapped resources there, we're abandoning this
opportunity and we know that there's at least 15 per cent of that remaining.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, through Noia's analysis, I
might add, that the project has the potential to support over 1,700 jobs and
$138 million in wages and almost 3,400 jobs and $139 million in wages annually
during 10 years, over a 10-year period. We also know from the analysis that $11
billion in royalties, provincial and municipal governments would receive a total
of $1.49 billion over 10 years. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and we need to
know these facts. The people have a right to know these facts and understand
that.
Mr. Speaker, we hear, for example, when we were given
the technical briefing – and I'm going to talk about that in a minute in more
detail, but that technical briefing that was provided there was a reference to a
marginal recovery. But when, for example, the Member for Stephenville - Port au
Port asked: What is that marginal recovery? We don't know. We need to know. We
have a right to know. How can they not know? How can you make a decision and
base such an important decision without having that data, without having that
information? I don't understand that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to point out as
well is with respect to the federal government. Now, we know that the federal
government, under the prime minister's leadership, is committed to a green
energy agenda. It's interesting to note, just this week after the G7 Summit
concluded, Canada, our federal government, said it would double its climate
finance pledge to $5.3 billion over the next five years. The taxpayers of Canada
are doubling their commitment to $5.3 billion over the next five years.
Our federal government, as well our Natural Resources
minister who is also a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I would submit, we know
that he has not been a strong advocate, in my opinion, for the people of the
province as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, in trying to understand this important
topic and this important issue to the people, I also inquired or looked into
what our former Premier Peckford had to say about this – our former Premier
Peckford who fought for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Basically in his
understanding and comments about this, he has stated that that's why I fought
for oil and gas development in the first place, because there was and is simply
no other source that can supply the level of revenues as oil and gas does.
He went on further to say that there's no compelling
evidence in the report – well, no evidence at all; and he's referring to the
PERT report – that the so-called new economy proposed – meaning the green
economy – can replace this level of revenues. I think that's important for us to
also recognize that right now where we stand in terms of the green economy, we
have to be smart about our support and development of this important resource,
especially for Newfoundland and Labrador which is an oil-based economy.
Mr. Speaker, the other point I want to make with
respect to what we know, which is so important to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, is in regard to jobs. The Terra Nova Project is really about jobs. We
know that jobs are created through investment. Jobs our people need to stay here
and to move here. Jobs our communities need to survive: the Terra Nova means
that. Right now, as we deal with such a huge population decline, there is no
greater priority, in my view, than jobs.
In the past year, we have seen layoffs. We've seen
Husky and Suncor, Terra Nova, Come By Chance refinery. And that can't sustain
our province if we continue to lose jobs. If we continue to see these job loses,
we will not be able to sustain our province. Without jobs and the income that
comes from that, every other challenge that we face in our province will only
escalate.
Without jobs, there is no revenue for health care.
There is no revenue for education. There is no revenue for poverty reduction.
There is no revenue for infrastructure. There is no revenue for a balanced
budget. Mr. Speaker, Terra Nova is a great opportunity for generating jobs. And
not only those jobs that Noia's analysis has given us, that we have to at least
look at and see what those numbers are, but the spinoff. The spinoff benefits to
communities is real, Mr. Speaker.
This is so important. Government has to ensure that
Terra Nova gets back in service as soon as possible, producing oil and
sustaining jobs for our province. We have a golden opportunity in our province.
We have the skilled labour; there is no question about that. Our Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians are skilled. They are recognized globally for their skill and
their experience and their talents and abilities. We have the skilled labour to
harness this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of tradespeople who are capable
of working in the Terra Nova.
Mr. Speaker, one other thing I think it's important to
acknowledge that we do know. We do know, for example, a joint media statement
came out just on the 7th of June from 12 mayors in municipalities on the
Northeast Avalon saying, recognizing and calling on the partners – not only the
partners in the industry but government – to invest in our people, our industry
and our communities by coming to some sort of resolution. They stated that they
recognize the industry has been integral to our social and economic well-being.
There's no disputing that. We know that is true.
It has afforded us opportunities to cultivate a
research and development sector. That is what it provided to us. To help us
diversify into new areas of business and technology, the oil industry helped us
do that. The big bad oil helped us do that, so we have to be fair in our
assessment of this. They presented opportunities for us to grow our talents and
expertise and support our communities.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few remaining minutes I'll ask
some of these questions. I've gone through what we know. What don't we know?
What we don't know is that according to the government and the minister – and
the Premier said, I think, yesterday that it's too great a risk. Well, what
exactly is that risk? I'm not one to have blind trust, nor are the people that I
represent. If it is too great a risk, you show us why that is. We don't know.
Simply saying the proposed terms were not acceptable given the risks – too great
a risk; that we're not looking at profit we're looking at risk – that's not
sufficient. That's not adequate, without explaining what the risks are. Identify
them. Exactly what are those risks?
Like I've referred earlier, the technical briefing said
it showed only marginal returns on an equity investment, as well as the
royalties. Well, what are those marginal returns? We have a right to know. What
is the amount that you're talking about? Why won't government give us the exact
figure of the returns? What is the profit we would be losing? We need to have
that information to understand the basis for their decision and how they came to
the conclusion that they did.
The technical briefing was given to us from 8:30 to
9:15. Because of that, I had to be in the House and could not be out on the
steps where my constituents, many of whom were tradespeople, were out on a
rally. I could not attend like other Members in the House on the Opposition
side. At any rate, we wanted to find out the information. The technical briefing
was vague. There was a non-disclosure statement that was referred to; we can't
tell you anything because of the non-disclosure. That's an explanation for
keeping us in the dark. Mr. Speaker, they very well know that they could have
sought and attempted to waive – see if they could waive that non-disclosure
agreement so as to give us the information.
Government says there's too great a risk; in order to
come to that conclusion we need to know how much can we recover. Mr. Speaker, we
don't know the facts. We need to know them. This is an important decision. It's
very unfortunate that there's such a lack of transparency. That is the problem
here; the public has to have all of the records.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Your time has expired.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always an honour to speak in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Labrador West, a mining
community. I've seen the downturn; I've seen the effects of losing an industry.
My mom and my dad both worked in the mines and I would argue that my mom, while
not the first, was one of the first women to go to work in an industrial
situation in Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
PARROTT:
In
the '80s, when Wabush Mines closed down the first time, suicide was rampant.
People left. They didn't know where to go or what to turn to. There was a
program that came out from the federal and provincial government; I think it was
called (inaudible). Some people tried to avail of that, some people were too old
to avail of it and some people lacked the initial education in order to take
advantage of retraining and schooling.
My point is that regardless of where you work, not
everybody is on the same foot, not everybody has the same ability to push past a
career that they've spent 20 or 30 years at. I really believe that it's okay for
us to sit here and say we're going to transition to a green economy, we're going
to take money and we're going to take oil workers and put them in a situation
where they can go back to work into a green economy. But I'll say I heard the
minister today say that we don't even know what a plan for a green economy looks
like. That plan hasn't been released. These people are hungry now, these people
are struggling to put food on their tables now, to pay bills and it's tough.
Mr. Speaker, after spending many years away from
Newfoundland and really making every day my goal to get back here – because I
love this province. It's why I ran because I love this province. I ran because I
didn't see a future for my children in this province. I ran because I see
industries slipping away, jobs slipping away and complete sectors – the fishery,
agriculture – different things that we just haven't been able to do right. I'm
not saying that I have the silver bullet to fix any of that, but I want to be a
part of fixing it.
I'm sure that all 40 people in this House feel the same
way. They all want to be a part of it. That's why we're here. We're here because
we love the province; we love our families. Each and every one of us, I believe,
stepped up because we think we have something to offer. If we don't have
something to offer, then we shouldn't be here, but we need to listen to each
other also.
Somebody asked me the other day why I'm so passionate
about the Terra Nova. I'm not just passionate about the Terra Nova; I'm
passionate about the people of this province. I'm passionate about oil and gas
in general, but certainly all of our natural resources.
To put it in perspective, I live in Clarenville. A few
kilometres down the road is our national park, Terra Nova. The subdivision I
live in is made up of Hibernia Drive, White Rose, Hebron Place, Jean D'Arc and
the street I live on, Terra Nova. I happen to be the MHA for Terra Nova. If
somebody wants to question why I'm so passionate about the Terra Nova, it's
everywhere I turn. Everywhere I turn, I see Terra Nova. I understand what it
means to people today. It's not that I think that oil and gas is our future. I
believe that oil and gas is the path to our future. Oil and gas is our present.
Without oil and gas, we may not have a future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
PARROTT:
We
sit here, we banter and we ask questions. People get offended by questions and
people get offended by responses. I just think we really need to sit back and
understand what this is all about.
I said it yesterday and I'll say it again: I'm really
shocked that I haven't heard one person from the other side talk about the Terra
Nova and how it affects their constituents and how they want to understand this.
It's not understanding why we're making a decision not to go forward; it's that
we don't have all of the facts.
Today we asked a question about abandonment, a number
that was never thrown around, but now we come to find out that walking away from
this is going to cost us $150 million or $200 million in royalty carry backs.
This is the information that we have been asking for, but hasn't been offered
up. We shouldn't have to ATIPP this stuff. We shouldn't have a Minister of the
Crown sitting over there saying that they've received emails from constituents
saying that this is a good idea. Then, if we ask to see those emails, they say:
Well, you can ATIPP them. You know what? Just table them. We're all here for the
same reason. I really just don't understand.
Terra Nova represents 1,100 direct jobs. I listened to
the Member for Harbour Main who spoke very eloquently. To her credit, she put a
lot of facts on the table. Those are the types of things we need to hear. It's
about the facts, but it's also about the realities. The facts and the realities
come together to give us the situation we're in here today. Those numbers are
not clear.
This government has convinced the population of this
province that there's $500 million coming from this government's pocket. I heard
a minister yesterday say if we don't use that money we can use it for other
things. We can use it for training or education or health care. All along that
question has been asked. As a matter of fact, that question has been asked in
this House for maybe eight months now and the answer is always been a firm no.
Not a maybe, not a let's see; it's an absolutely not. When we asked if any of
that money could be used to help with the refinery the answer was absolutely
not. But now all of a sudden we can use it for health care. I don't know, I
don't know. It's not clear.
Then there's the $300 million in royalties. Well, let's
be clear. That money is not coming from the provincial coffers. But let's be
clear about something else, if the Terra Nova fails, that money is also not
going into the provincial coffers nor is a whole lot of other money that nobody
is considering. I find it hard to believe that government can sit here and tell
us that they've done an analysis, but nobody can tell us the downside of this
decision. Nobody can tell us what it's going to cost us not to put the Terra
Nova back into production.
If we're making a decision based on not having all
these facts, I don't get it. Now, if the harsh reality is that we don't have the
money to buy into this and make it work, if that is the harsh reality, then
somebody over there ought to have the courage to stand up and say that. It
hasn't been said. It hasn't been talked about. It hasn't been suggested.
The reality that we're in here today is that we have
1,100 men and women who don't have a job. We have 1,700 men and women who could
be employed almost immediately at about $138 million over a two-year period for
refurbishment. After that period, when it goes back into production, we have
another 1,100 people that go back to work full-time and then we have, by this
government's own numbers, four times that amount working in our public sector –
not public sector but working in our private sector supporting oil and gas.
Right now, by the numbers I've got, there are 102
companies that have direct contracts with the Terra Nova. Some of those
companies, 75 per cent of their business is directly related to the Terra Nova,
75 per cent of their business is directly related to the fate of this rig and
we're not considering those people. When we talk about 1,100 people losing their
jobs, buckle up, because it's going to get a lot worse. There are a lot more
than 1,100 people.
We need to look at that. We need to consider that. For
this not to be talked about in this House, it bewilders me. It's the reality of
a decision that's being made here today. We need to know all of the facts. How
can we not be looking at the indirects? How can the minister stand over there
yesterday and say, well, we have $35 million put in the budget, but, obviously,
that's just not there if this doesn't go back.
So it's $35 million this year. What about the next 10
years? What is the cost over the next 10 years? What is the cost of failure? I
don't understand it.
This rig has been idle since 2019, along with a lot of
other ones. Yesterday, I listened to the minister – and, listen, I'm not saying
that the minister is saying things wrong. The reality of it is there are a
billion barrels in Bay du Nord. That's great. Do you know what? There are
probably two or three billion barrels outside of Bay du Nord, all over. Awesome.
We have liquid nitrogen gas offshore that's the envy of the world. There's no
question of that. The science shows it.
This government would argue that the federal government
has shortened the time for environmental approvals – yet to be seen. Maybe they
have, maybe they haven't. Six hundred and fifty finds possibly as big as Hebron
or bigger. It all sounds good, but in reality none of that is any good to us if
we're not utilizing it.
What good is a billion barrels of oil in the bottom of
the ocean if we have no activity going on? We have Bull Arm out there, a
glorified parking lot for dead rigs. The Henry Goodrich: cold stacked. Not a
good word, bad word. We've had this conversation a few times. West Aquarius:
cold stacked. Again, bad word, not coming back. The Barents: gone, left, gone
overseas.
The first time, I believe, since 1979 – and I could be
corrected on that number – that there hasn't been a drill rig off the coast of
this province, up until a few weeks ago when the Stena Forth came here. We went
almost a year without a drill rig. We actually jeopardized our entire offshore
industry. We didn't have any way to do a work over or fix any of the tie-backs
or if there was a major blowout. We didn't have the capacity to look after our
own ocean. Yet, not a word, not from not only government but from the C-NLOPB,
which shocked me.
We don't have a plan. We can talk all the time about a
plan. We haven't heard anything about projected offshore land sales. As a matter
of fact, the C-NLOPB decided this year that they wouldn't go out for land sales
in the Bay du Nord. Don't know why, but they didn't.
It's not good to have all of this data if we're not
going to use it. We sit here in a place that should be thriving. We're a
province that has it all, yet we don't use any of it. We should be thriving. We
should be pushing forward. We should have a plan that advances us. And, no,
COVID should not have restricted us. We should've made a plan while COVID was
going on, like the rest of the world. We should have been looking for a way
forward. To coin the phrase: The Way
Forward.
Instead, Third-World countries like Guyana have
surpassed us. They're going way, way, way further ahead than we are. As they're
putting rigs out to the ocean, we're going backwards.
We have the cleanest fuels in the world and we don't
get support from our federal counterparts, yet they think it's okay to bring
Saudi fuel in here to be refined, to be used. They've forgotten about us. They
look at this Island as if it was floating wharf. I think they wish they could
cut the lines and set us free so they didn't have anything to do with us. We sit
here and don't say a word, not a word.
It's okay for us to sit here and complain about each
other and what we do in here as a House, but there's one thing that's common in
this House that I don't hear anyone say, that is that our federal counterparts
do not stand up for the people that represent this province. They do not say a
word and we don't hold them accountable. We don't say a word. It's shameful.
We have a federal minister who has said nothing about
this file, not a word. Three hundred and twenty million dollars for an industry,
yet they inject $200 million into a casino. Do you know what? Oh, they keep
saying that; of course we keep saying that. Think about it. A casino that
probably employs a couple hundred people. We're talking about an industry, in
the minister's own words, that employs 6,700 people directly. That doesn't
include the indirects; 6,700 people offshore, $320 million; 200 people in a
casino, $200 million. Do the math. It's pretty simple math. It's not real hard
to do.
The only thing worse than being blind is to have sight
with no vision, and we've lost vision in this House. Our federal counterparts
have certainly lost vision. We ought to be standing up for the people that put
us here. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, we've lost our way and we don't
want to do that. We can sit here and talk it over and over again, I've said it.
I've heard lots of people in this House say the same thing. At the end of the
day, we have to find a way to do it.
There's an old adage about having tools in your tool
chest to do the work that you have to do. We have the tools, folks. We have a
lot of tools here. We have the manpower, we have the willpower and we have the
knowledge. It's not good to give someone a shovel and watch them dig a hole with
their hands. That's exactly what we're doing here. We continue to do it all the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is very similar to the
information that we got yesterday. I say that because it lacks information. We
got a briefing yesterday morning where it wasn't what was said; it's what wasn't
said. When you ask questions about how you got to this decision, again, no
answers. We don't know what it's going to cost; we don't know what the impact
is; we don't know what the next 10 years look like; we don't know how this
affects the rest of the oil industry; we want to believe that it won't have any
detrimental effects – all speculation.
The budget is very similar, you know; the meat is not
there. The people I represent in my district are tradespeople, they are people
who work offshore, they are people who work in a refinery that has been shut
down for a long time, and hopefully now there's a glimmer of hope. We're hearing
some maybe positive news, but we'll have to wait and see.
But it's no different than all of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We're spinning our wheels here for no good reason. We, as a province,
have allowed COVID to take a hold of us and decide our destiny. We have not
looked at a way to develop our natural resources going forward and we have not
looked at a way to take advantage of a downturn in the economy, which we could
have turned into an upturn. We allow companies – we're paying more for gas now
than we ever have for no good reason and then we just added a tax to it. It's
time for us to start looking at what we have here and to utilize our own people
and our resources.
For some reason, like I said, it's always the same way.
We talk about our workers and we talk about how great it is we're building a
mental health facility, yet we don't understand what we're doing to people's
mental health by not helping them pick themselves up. Mental health in my
district is a big deal and I'm sure it is in everybody's district here. There's
not a day that goes by when we don't receive a call or we don't have someone
who's on the edge either because of finances or employment or both and they
can't get help. They can't get help financially and they can't get help
mentally. They can't find a way forward and we don't give them the opportunity
to pick themselves up. That opportunity comes from making people feel good about
themselves and giving people the opportunity to succeed on their own steam, and
all we do is throw water on the fire every time we get close to doing something
right.
Today will be a dark day in Newfoundland if this Terra
Nova rig fails. Again, I said yesterday and I'll say it again today, I'm not
suggesting that we go all in on equity. We don't have the information to make a
decision on that and that is not our fault. Maybe we didn't need to know the
cost of equity, but we ought of have known the cost of the next 10 years without
the Terra Nova offshore producing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
PARROTT:
We
ought to have known what it costs for us as a province to have 1,100 men and
women immediately unemployed and to have possibly as many as 4,500 unemployed.
We sit and we talk about migration and population growth, and I can tell you,
I've heard it from the unions and I've heard it from the people in my district
that work in this industry, they're not sticking around – they're not sticking
around. Somebody said, oh, they're gonna to leave because the taxes are higher.
No, they're not going to leave because the taxes are higher; they're going to
leave because they don't have any money. They got no income. They got nothing.
Go to the grocery store and try and buy a steak or a
piece of chicken. Go have a look at the price of food now. It's gone through the
roof. It's probably gone through the roof partially because of supply and
demand, because people can't afford to buy it so it gets more expensive.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L.
PARROTT:
Mr.
Speaker, somebody is whistling; can we ask them to stop?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L.
PARROTT:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who have men and
women in their district throughout this entire province. I would argue that
there's probably not one individual in this House that doesn't have somebody who
works in the oil and gas sector, either here or in Alberta, or overseas or in
South America. They've all seen the effects of the global pandemic on oil and
gas. We've all seen that.
Last March when we got shut down, there was an
opportunity for us to chart a path forward. Part of that path was to look at
ways to save the Terra Nova, to save the West White Rose and possibly get a
long-term plan for Bull Arm. A lot of things that would have given us a future,
and none of these things happened. Right now, we've got the West White Rose out
in Argentia sitting idle. It's sat idle forever. Actually, we pumped a bunch of
money into it and the end result was layoffs.
It's easy to say government can pump in $500 million,
we're not putting in anymore and we're going to walk away because of our
financial stance. But it's not entirely honest when that is said. Again, the
$205 million is a flow through. That's cash that's coming from Ottawa. Nobody
can answer us whether or not that cash stays here. We've asked the question;
nobody can answer that.
Now, I had somebody yesterday chirp out and say there
are other requests out there. I'm still being told that there's not. Again, the
$300 million in royalties, not only do they equate to zero if we don't move
forward, but we have a bill for $200 million. We have 1,100 people out of jobs,
a bill for $200 million, no future royalties and no possible future.
I don't know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we need all the
facts before we make a decision. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, it's always an honour to
speak in this House.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as we wind down debate on the 2021-22 budget,
it's an honour to speak again about the impact this and a number of other
programs that it directly funds will have on the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
This is my third time to speak directly on the budget
itself. The last time I started by saying it has been a confusing and saddening
day when we first learned of the potential fate of the Terra Nova Project.
Today, it is still a saddening day, but it is still even more worrisome now that
we are close to a point where the lives of so many Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, the oil industry and Newfoundland and Labrador itself could be
dramatically altered by what could possibly happen over the next period of time.
I said it the last time and I'll say it again: I am a
continuous optimist. I always believe there is a solution to every challenge,
there is a way to make things better in our society, in our lives and there is a
way collectively to find a path forward. I am still hopeful. I don't know if the
lead has to come from levels of government. I don't know if it is the lead that
has to come from the oil industry. I don't know if it needs to come from the
union leaders, or from the rank and file themselves. Collectively, this industry
is too important to us, it is too important on a global perspective and it is
too important for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for us not to
do everything. And I mean everything possible, within the realm of what's in the
best interest of all that's involved, to try to find the solution to this
challenge.
I know we have talked about it continuously in this
House. We have asked over 45 questions directly. I suspect we debated it and
discussed it – my colleagues on this side maybe for another five, six, seven
hours in discussion that Terra Nova and the oil industry itself were the primary
discussion topic in having a roundabout on where we are, because we are
passionate about it.
I don't think in any way, shape or form that the
Members on that side are not just as passionate as we are, because I think
everybody understands it. My colleague just now, from Terra Nova, noted the
point that everybody in this House, everybody in this province is directly or
indirectly connected to somebody who works in the oil industry or benefits from
that.
If you are so far removed and you've never even
understood what the oil industry is about, you're still affected in a positive
way because of the money that have been generated, the use of technology. What
this has brought to our province, not just in the direct benefits to the oil
industry or the production and all that, but all the other spinoff things; the
skill sets that have been learned in that industry that have been able to be
transformed into other careers; enabled to be able to make that bridging to help
things in manufacturing; and even in health care and education, all kinds of
things. If you go to the college system here and our university, do you think
part of what they've developed here didn't come and be driven by technology
advances in the oil industry and the skill set there? Without a doubt. Not
counting the hundreds – and I do want to emphasize hundreds – of millions of
dollars that have directly been put in there because of the oil industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
For anybody out there – and I know there are some
skeptics about: Oh, we shouldn't be funding the oil industry. We shouldn't be in
bed with the oil industry. We shouldn't partner with the oil industry. I want
you to realize and look around. Everybody in this province benefits from the oil
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Now, I'm not saying that we have to bend down to any level of any industry, the
oil industry included, but we do need to set the environment that includes
industry, particularly the oil and gas industry, that want to come to
Newfoundland and Labrador. Set the environment where they know we're open for
business; set the environment where they know we're willing to give a fair deal
as long as at the end of the day we get a fair shake also. That's not too much
to ask for of any governments, it's not too much to ask for of any society and
it's not too much to give up from any company or corporation out there.
We've seen it, and my colleague from Harbour Main said
the same thing. This is not big bad oil, by no stretch of the imagination. I
have dozens of friends who are at every level in the oil industry, up to senior
executive levels. They don't do anything different than we do, they don't think
differently than we do and their moral beliefs are not different than ours are,
Mr. Speaker. They believe in the same things we do. They just have a role and
responsibility to do, no different than we have in this House and no different
than anybody who came in their former careers before they got into this House or
those who may leave and go into another career. They do what they think is in
the best interests of their employers and what they're trying to do, while at
the same time ensuring that everybody they work with benefits from what they're
proposing. So I want to dispel that out there.
I know it's very easy, particularly in our province, to
rile people on one side of the fence or the other, but this shouldn't be about
that. It's not about us and them. I think that too often that has become the
conversation than it should be around how do we find a way to do things. I want
to clarify that on this side of the House we're not anti anything, what we are
is let's find the best way to use all the resources we have, all of the people
we have and all of the benefactors we have to ensure we all benefit from that as
part of that process.
To those people who are listening and watching out
there, the oil industry is not about giveaways from the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador. As I would suspect, the chair or the CEO of one of
these corporations is saying to their shareholders: You know what, this is not
about giveaways to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or any other
jurisdiction, it's about a balance. It's about a balance that ensures we all
achieve our objectives. I would suspect in the corporate world – and I know
because I worked there for a period of time – it's about ensuring that they are
profitable; that the expenditures that they have are met; if they're in to a
shareholder process, their shareholders are happy by the way that the
corporation is moving forward; that they change their branding; and that they
change the products and services that they're providing.
No different than we in government do the same thing.
We want to look at that we are going to be profitable in what we do. If it's
profitable in social programs, if it's profitable in our revenue generating, if
it's profitable in how we develop our infrastructure processes, we want to do
that. The population of Newfoundland and Labrador, the same way. At the end of
the day, they want to know whatever they're gaining in our society, be it
whoever provides that – if it's the corporate world, if it's the social world,
if it's the government world – they benefit from that. There are certain
expectations and obligations from them also, and realistic expectations about
what is the limit that can be expected, that we all gain from what we are doing
from part of that process.
I wanted to dispel that because I've gotten, like
everybody here – we've all gotten dozens, maybe hundreds of emails since this
whole debate started around Terra Nova. I've tried to explain, as I know my
colleagues on this side of it, this is not about taking a side, one way or the
other. This is about finding the path forward that ensures those who are most
affected by what may happen in this particular project, and in future projects,
are looked at to find solutions to address their immediate fears. Their
immediate fear is being unemployed. Their immediate fear is how do I pay my
mortgage. Their immediate fear is my kids are in programs and services; what do
I say to my kids now about doing those? My immediate fear is – and I suspect the
biggest one – I don't want to leave my hometown; I don't want to leave our
province. This is where I came to stay; I don't want to leave this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
We're trying to keep as optimistic as possible. We've put out overtures – and
the Premier knows that, the minister knows that and the government knows it –
that we are willing. I particularly know that the Official Opposition are
willing to try to find a solution and work with it. We won't banter for the sake
of bantering. We will challenge, don't get me wrong, and we will ask for
clarification. We may even stretch the line sometimes on knowing where it is the
information can be shared and when, but there is an ability here to do the right
thing.
The right thing may have to be, at the end of the day,
we just could not get to where people wanted to go. That necessarily isn't the
wrong thing. It's never the wrong thing if it's done for the right reason and
everything possible has been examined. I just wanted to start that by saying
that at the end of day I'm still optimistically hopeful. I don't know who's
driving the bus right now to make that go in the right direction to get us to
that school, but I'm hoping whoever the bus driver is and whoever is sitting in
those seats have the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when
they make the decisions. The best interest here would be that the Terra Nova
Project continues forward.
I think all involved – I think the oil companies
themselves will not lose from being involved in this. They may have all kinds of
logistical reasons why some would prefer to pull out. I understand that. That's
business. But at the end of the day, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and this
province have been good to the oil industry, as the oil industry has been good
to Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to be
able to find a way to get everyone – everyone – to be cognizant of the roles and
responsibilities they have to ensure that people are financially equipped and
that our oil industry doesn't take a black eye because we weren't able to
continue one of the projects that have deemed very viable.
The data says that there are still reserves there. The
seismic dictates that as they start moving towards the additional resources that
are there, they're going to find additional, as we have in every other one of
our wells that we've started. Particularly, let's go back to our original one
with Hibernia and where we are now.
I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of being on the
platform with the minister of natural resources – sorry, I apologize for the new
change to the department, but the minister, the premier and senior officials.
Again, I've said this to this House before, amazed at the technology and what's
been achieved for over a quarter of a century ago and what the potential is. I
mean what we've done has only scratched the surface. These are the oil industry
people. I don't mean the people who are worried about their shared dividends as
shareholders; these are the rank and file, the people who drill the wells; the
people who unload the supply vessels; the people who make sure everybody is safe
on board; the people who ensure that the operations are in line with everything
environmental.
These are the people who are telling us that. They're
telling us that and then I have a smile on my face that our oil and gas industry
is vibrant, alive and has a great future. But at the same time, we have to send
a message to the world that we are open for business. We're open because we
understand the value of this industry and we're not afraid to take some risks.
Now, the risks can't be that it's going to be
detrimental if it doesn't work. I realize – and I'll preach more than most
people – that government shouldn't be in the business of creating employment.
They should never be. Sometimes, unfortunately, it's forced to because either
circumstance or the environment itself or timing dictates that something is more
important to go against what would normally be their philosophy. Government
should be in the business of setting the environment, the tone, the policy
regulatory processes and possibly directing the educational needs of certain
industries. We have been extremely good at it.
Let's go back to when this started in the early '80s
when the Hibernia process was being talked about, when the Atlantic Accord was
signed, when there was hope here that we were diversifying. We all know what
happened to our fishing industry, which is still a very viable industry and I
think has a very vibrant future and it continues to be and still will be one of
our major financial contributors to the economy of this province, but we needed
something.
Even in those days the mining industry, which is very
valuable – like my colleague who grew up in a mining town, I'm a fifth
generation of a mining family and then to see it go from boom to bust was
disheartening. To see that the mining industry then started to take a downward
swing and now to see where we are again. To see that we have diversified into
other types of minerals that we weren't even into at one point, particularly out
in some areas in Central Newfoundland.
It tells me that our industries in this province are
still very vibrant and it tells me partnering with people in those industries is
not a bad thing. I have been fortunate enough to have been to a number of the
mining conferences out in the Baie Verte area. I have to say I say this with
pure respect: Because it is not in the middle of a downtown city, you would
sometimes question if they could put off something of that magnitude when you
think of it. But when you have people from all over the world attend and it is a
class A operation and you learn so much. In a classroom setting in the college
system, I learned as much from people who are from China talking about
exploration down there and what their industry means. When I'm hearing from
European countries, when I hear from all other places of this country.
But when I see the skill set of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and the lead from our college system to our university system, what
they're doing, and I see all that in the Baie Verte peninsula and those
communities there, I'm saying we have not only a vibrant industry there, but we
have an unbelievable skill set. A human skill set that is second to none. For
that skill set to flourish and move beyond just our own borders here and have
people not move away but have people come here to learn from us or people come
and say train us in your skill set so we can go back to our own jurisdictions
and pass on that knowledge and that particular skill set.
I had one of the reporters in the scrum today ask me
that question: Do you think you've asked enough questions on Terra Nova? And my
response: We've asked everything we possibly think we could. We've asked about
additional information that would be beneficial to us making some decisions,
making some recommendations, or maybe 100 per cent siding with the government
that the path they've taken is the right path. But the issue was about we don't
know. We literally don't know. The gaps there don't give us enough confidence to
be able to say this is what we should do, this is what the government should do,
or collectively between us all we all should walk away from it. We don't know.
So that's the question there. I did say to the reporter
that this is not over yet. We haven't given up, and I would hope and expect nor
has the government given up. But particularly I'm hoping that the oil industry
themselves haven't given up on this. I'm hoping somewhere in a boardroom or a
Zoom room where somebody is actually now still having a conversation, or there
are some officials of companies that are crunching numbers and looking at
potential investments or looking at how they can defer certain expenses to be
able to make this project continue where it needs to go. Or someone to have the
innovation and the foresight to be able to say, you know what, we have a vibrant
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're going to stay with that. Even if
it's not as profitable – if our margins are 22 per cent and it's not as
profitable as some of our other projects here or in other jurisdictions, we're
going to stay with.
But to do that – and I said it earlier – we, in this
province, need to set the environment. The financial environment, the investment
environment and the technical supports that is necessary to do that. That's the
role and responsibility of government. If it's around tax regimes, if it's
around dividends, if it's around equity share, whatever it may be, those options
should all be there for discussion. Doesn't mean you're going to take all of
them. Doesn't mean you're going to take any of them. It might meant that you
mesh a couple together because that works in one area. It might mean you don't
touch anything; you let it all go naturally to one entity.
So I wanted to talk about that because, at the end of
the day, I wanted to remind this reporter that we've done everything.
Everything, I think, in our power here to advise government, support workers,
support the oil industry and support the oil companies to come to a solution.
Right now, again as I said, it's worrisome for me because there's so much at
stake.
When I had the opportunity yesterday out on the
Confederation Building steps to talk to some of the individuals directly
affected by it – it's heart wrenching when you don't know if you're going to
have employment. And unfortunately you're in an atmosphere in an industry right
now that isn't exactly booming. There aren't exactly direct opportunities next
week to jump and change your jobs.
Now, do we know? Are we confident the oil industry will
come back? No doubt it will. Particularly if we set the proper environment and
the proper tone here to do it. Because as I said earlier, we already have the
resources. We have the cleanest energy around, the cleanest oil energy. We have,
by far, the most skilled individuals to be able to do that. And we already have
our infrastructure. We have our ice-free ports. We have what I hope – in another
one of those optimistic things – is a refinery up and operational in the very
near future. We're hoping and very optimistic, because that's another
cornerstone of what the oil industry means and the draw and attraction for
people.
So I do want to reiterate again to all those who were
out there yesterday, to all those workers who were affected by it, to all those
supply companies, all those who benefit from it – people forget it's not just
the workers who jump on a ship and go out or on a helicopter to go out. They are
very important, because they're the front-line people who are doing the work.
But it's all those other companies who provide services. It might mean the
groceries that go out to feed all the individuals out there. Or it might mean
technical support that's necessary. Or it might mean somebody having to go out
and spend two weeks away from their family because they work for a contracting
company doing something specific to ensure people are safer out there and the
operations are working so that there is no slowdown and there is no gap in
services for people. So that's the worry part here.
I'm also worried because I wasn't reassured by the
federal minister yesterday. There's no slight on the provincial minister and
there's no slight on the Premier or the government at this point. But yesterday
my slight to anybody was the federal minister did nothing, said nothing that
would reassure me that they have an understanding of what this means to the
people of this province; have an understanding of the impact this could have on
the oil industry nationally, globally and our stake in that. I did not get a
real, true sense that the first priority would be the workers of Newfoundland
and Labrador, from what he would find to foster or advocate for that the federal
government's role and responsibility would be here.
I was taken back by that. I thought it was a dialogue
with some workers about nothing that was relevant to them. I think that was the
response I noticed from people, particularly when I spoke to them. So that's
worrisome. When our minister, when the minister responsible for Natural
Resources is a home-grown individual who should have a better understanding of
the value and the need here, and I don't see that individual as our champion,
then that's worrisome. That's why I say that's worrisome right now, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
I
understand MPs, various roles up there, other MPs that are here. I'm not
singling any of them out, because I've worked with other MPs and I understand
different roles and responsibilities, people have different skill sets and
people do things differently. Behind the scenes, they do work for their
constituents. Maybe they lobby not as publicly as people would think and want
behind the scenes to get things for our province. I respect that. So I don't
disrespect any of them going up there. Nor do I disrespect Minister O'Regan, but
I do have a concern.
When you're in that position, when you have that
ability and in an hour of our need, in the crisis time you don't step up and do
everything in your power – if that means you have to work with the oil
companies, if it means you have to flex your muscle with the oil companies, if
it means you have to flex your muscle with your own cabinet. Let's not forget
why we're still a very vibrant, alive province: somebody like John Crosbie. We
all know the story. He stood his ground.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Mr.
Speaker, he went to his cabinet, he went to his prime minister and said, this is
not just about John Crosbie; this is about the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. He went one bigger. He said this is about the people of this great
country of ours; we'll all gain from that. Because of who John Crosbie was,
because of his respect within his caucus – and no doubt, he had people there who
wouldn't support it.
No doubt, I suspect there was a difference of opinion
in the provincial Cabinet here on where things are going right now, as it has
been when I was a Cabinet minister. We don't always agree; we come from
different perspectives. But I will tell you John Crosbie stood up and convinced
the prime minister who took a risk also. Who had no real loyalty to Newfoundland
and Labrador, no real connection here, about the oil industry and went against
some of his counterparts and some of his own caucus and cabinet ministers to
look at something. Had a little bit more vision. That Newfoundland and Labrador
being prosperous makes the rest of this Confederation prosperous.
We've all seen when we ran into a bit of a bump in the
road with Hibernia and that it all could have come to a complete stop, that it
was the federal government who stepped up and said, you know what, we have a
role, a responsibility but, more importantly, we have an ability to do the right
thing here, to continue to make things going. They bought a stake in this
industry because they believed in the industry, they believed in Newfoundland
and Labrador and they believed in the workers who were going to make that a
vibrant industry.
I guarantee you, $5 billion later they didn't make the
wrong investment, Mr. Speaker, with out a doubt.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
It
wasn't the wrong investment in Hibernia, it wasn't the wrong investment in the
oil industry and it wasn't the wrong investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. I
guarantee you it wasn't the wrong investment in the workers of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
That's the foresight we need here and we need it from
Ottawa. We need that partnership. I don't care what the political stripe is up
there. We need vision and we need support because we have a vibrant future, we
have an extremely vibrant future. We're part of this Confederation but we also
have responsibilities in it. We also have obligations and so does the government
have responsibilities for us, and obligations. Their obligation and
responsibility is to ensure that we are a vibrant province.
Mr. Speaker, I see the hour of the day. We're ready to
take our supper break.
I do adjourn debate, seconded by the Member for the
Conception Bay South, and that we'll return after the supper break, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that we do adjourn now until 5 p.m.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Six.
SPEAKER:
Sorry.
This House sits adjourned until 6 p.m.
June 15, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 17A
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are
the House Leaders ready?
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Oh
sorry, I apologize; we have to bring the House back.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wouldn't want to pre-empt the Leader of the
Opposition but I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's indeed an honour to come back again after our
supper break to continue debate on the 2021-22 budget that will reflect the
programs and services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and reflect
the fiscal situation that we're facing; hopefully, the plan to move things
forward, stabilize the financial woes of our province and start us on the path
to a brighter future.
Mr. Speaker, this is my 40th budget where I've been
directly, or even indirectly but indirectly still fairly close to budgets. I've
been fortunate enough going back 40 budgets ago to either be directly involved
in pre-budget consultations or sitting in this House because I worked for
departments where I had to ensure things were relevant and advise our
communications people of what potential questions could be coming. Also, I
worked for a Crown agency of government where our budget was hinging on what was
happening in the House of Assembly.
Obviously, for four years I had the privilege of
chairing Committee, so I know exactly what Estimates is all about and I know the
integral workings of the budget process. I particularly know and appreciate the
work of the civil service and what they do. I have not heard one person on our
side since I have been on the Opposition side criticize departments for not
having the information to be able to answer questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
I
have been a minister and no doubt as minister sometimes you're coy on your
answers because you either don't want to share all the information right now or
it's information that's probably not the best time to share it, because there
may be other things in the works that you want to do. Or this might be relevant
to some good announcement that is coming down the road so you massage it
somewhat at the end of the day.
But when you have the civil service who specifically
can give you intricate details so that you know when you ask those questions in
Opposition that the information you're getting is – not only is it accurate but
it's based on the path forward that the intent of the budget would be to ensure
that the programs and services are funded and the money is being spent on the
line items where it would need to go. I have been fortunate to be in that
category. I also got to sit as one of those staff in my former career to get to
answer some questions for people, so I had a good understanding of what goes on
in here.
You get a different perspective when you're a minister,
because it's not only about answering the questions – the notes are already done
by the bureaucrats themselves – but you also have to feel that what you're
selling is actually what you believe in. The line items, the programs funding
and where you're going to invest for government is going to be to the benefit of
the people of this province.
No doubt, people forget – and I'll just do a little
education for the general public who may be watching – a budget doesn't happen
overnight. The printed booklet might be done overnight, but the months – and I
do mean months. I suspect every administration has its starting and end time,
but early fall every department is intricately looking at how the budget lines
from the previous budget went; what particular nuances or situations or programs
did they run into that had to be adjusted; what are the new changing trends or
what are some emerging things that they had no foresight on – never could
anticipate that happened, emergencies happen, that you start budgeting for. I
suspect you also start looking at new, innovative ways to address issues for
people. That could be in anything from health care to education, to social
programs, to infrastructure, for example.
As ministers, the objective ministers just drive the
headings as such and probably set the tone, based on what you've heard from the
general public around what policies and programs should be the primary objective
of that line department. But the civil service then goes to work to first,
balancing and projecting – because you still normally have three to four to five
months left in your budget process to know that the uptake is going to be there
to justify it. Or if it isn't, then an analysis is done to determine whether or
not that program is still necessary in the next budget lines or reduced, or
increased as part of that process.
If there are some issues there that weren't spent for a
particular reason, that has to be identified to know what went wrong or why
there was a change in what was the expectation for that particular program.
There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes on by the civil service here
to ensure that the budget lines, once produced and once the debate in this House
of Assembly – particularly the line by line critiqued in Estimates are accurate,
can be justified and can have the documentation to back up exactly the relevance
and pertinence and, more importantly, the way that this is going to be
implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to thank the civil service for doing that. I
want to thank the agencies, boards and commissions that work to ensure that the
information is relevant and given. In a lot of cases, a lot of these agencies,
boards and commissions and/or the civil service must find ways to be more
economically efficient. At times, there are always challenges there. They go
back and look at and analyze exactly what it is that they're offering and how
they can offer that in a more efficient and financially
less-burdening-to-the-province manner.
I want to acknowledge that. I've had some very unique
situations. I've read the 2000 budget because there were a lot of similarities
to where we are right now in certain cases. I read the '89 budget because it was
again similar to where we are. There are always lulls, peaks and valleys in our
financial woes in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'd like to be able to say that, unfortunately, there
should be a process or there should be plan that it doesn't happen, but no
matter what administration – and it's not labelled to one particular party –
circumstances change. The volatility of your commodities and the volatility of
your resources hinge on other jurisdictions and the world markets. You can plan
all the things in the world, but sometimes it doesn't work out. I saw that as a
minister at one point when oil was nearly $80 a barrel, and before we wrote our
budget, it was down at $36 a barrel. We were hinging, as were the previous
administration before us, that that was going to generate X number of dollars in
revenue. You have to adjust accordingly.
To get my head around this particular budget and what
was being proposed, I wanted to go back to some former budgets that were close
to it and may be relevant to some of the same challenges and may be a different
perspective when it came to what was causing the lull financially or what was
causing some of the other wants that people would like to have but no longer
were viable in our province and the changing tone when it came to the demand on
services.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out from '89 to 2000
to 2021, the aging demographic and the costing of health care is a dramatic
change. Even in education, while there may be a shift, the shift has been that
health care has overtaken education. In some of these budgets, education was the
biggest expenditure in the province at the time. Again, if you look at the
demographics, double the number of students existed then than did senior
citizens. Now the demographic has quadrupled in the opposite manner. You have to
adjust accordingly.
Plus, I give credit, over the last number of decades,
that we've modernized our education process, we've put in extra supports to
ensure that every student is engaged in our system and get the best supports
possible to ensure that it's an inclusive system and that they have access to
that education. Is it a perfect system? Not at all. Are there a lot of gaps in
service? Yes. Are we doing a lot of good things? Of course we are. Are there
tens of thousands of professionals providing services? Of course there are.
Could we use another $50 million to provide services? Of course we could. But
you try to work within the parameters of what you have and the monies you have
to be able to provide the best quality service for all groups in our society.
I tried to get my head around it because – and I'll say
this with all respect – I don't know if this is a great budget in getting us
where we go, or if there are a lot of gaps in what happens there, only because
it appears to set a framework that could get us on the right path. I say it
appears because the devil is in the detail.
My colleague, the critic for Finance, has asked
questions and we've gotten good dialogue back and forth, but there's a lot of
supporting documentation that I think would make it easier for us to determine
if this is the path forward that will be the light at the end of the tunnel and
will keep our society in a positive light and that things are going to improve
and get better.
I'm still hopeful, as we have debate over some of the
other money bills here, that there will be some more information discussed.
Maybe it's just that we're not interpreting the information in the same manner
yet, so that hopefully will get clearer as we go through it.
Right now we're open to trying to see what approach
forward is the best for the people of this province, and the best to address our
financial challenges. We accept that. There's no debate about the financial
situation that certain things have to be done, that a different path has to be
taken. We haven't disagreed with the government on that. We've seriously talked
about reviews of boards and agencies and commissions. We've talked about our
educational institutions, how we better fund them so that we get better
outcomes. We've talked about how we approach health care so that we get better
outcomes and we have a healthier society.
Sometimes it might mean you invest money to save money
in the long run. That's the balance that you must find when it comes to figuring
out the best path forward.
In the debate tonight, we're going to be talking about
– and I know the Premier will talk about – the path forward and the framework
that's been put forward with this budget and the fact that it isn't a budget
that would at this point stall the economy. I'll give credit to that. That was
one of the fears when we knew a budget was coming down after the Greene report,
because the Greene report painted a very sombre situation. It actually basically
drew a line in the sand that said if we don't move past this line, we're
destined to fail as a province. When you say things like there'll be somebody
else administering our operations and that the federal government will have sole
ownership of Newfoundland and Labrador's future, then that makes you very
alarmed at the future of this province.
I think that may be done for a reason. It may be to
really frighten people into saying, you know what? While it's not doom and
gloom, there are certain things that have to be done. Sometimes a reality check
is perhaps the best thing for you to really look back and prioritize what are
the most important things in your life and what are the most important things
for a sustainable economy and a sustainable society.
While we've talked about the Greene report and I think
there are some very important recommendations there – I think there are some
real important approaches forward – I do still have challenge with some other
ones. I'm not dismissing all of them, but I'm saying there is some other
analysis that needs to be done or the information – if the analysis was already
done – to be shared so that we can make an informed decision on if this is the
path forward on some of these recommendations. Is it a combination of certain
ones at a certain time in a certain program? Is it a combination of some in
different stages over periods of years? Is it a combination of some in certain
budgets that you move forward?
There is a framework now, I think, between everything
we have. It is not just based on this budget and it is not just based on the
Greene report, because to me the Greene report is based on about 35 reports
going back to Dr. Doug House's Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment.
There are a number of things in that that I remembered as a young civil servant
working with the commission and actually presenting on behalf of a couple of
outside agencies to the commission about how we stimulate employment in
Newfoundland and Labrador; how we grow the economy itself; the role of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, what that meant; the role of the industries that we
had that were vibrant and were the mainstay of our society at the time.
Looking from then to where we are now, nearly 35 years
later, seeing what industries are still there that are still vibrant and still
can be built upon; what new industries, when we talk about diversification, that
really were either just talked about then or didn't exist; and what industries
really didn't flourish and, if they didn't, why they didn't flourish, as part of
that whole process.
There are a few things there that I think the framework
determines that we have the ability to do certain things. I'm not sure that we
have put enough meat on some of them, and maybe that wasn't Moya Greene and her
committee's responsibility, but I think to really move forward, we need to do
that.
We need to look at what agriculture means in
Newfoundland and Labrador, what we invest in that. Do we go all in on it and
make that one of our biggest priorities now because it is an industry that can
grow? It is also an industry that gives us food security. Is it an industry,
then, that can be part of our exporting versus importing? There are a few things
there that I would like to know, because I am not fluent in that; I wouldn't
know that. A little bit of knowledge of agriculture for me is probably more
dangerous because I would think it could only go skewed one way versus the
multitude of things that would be out there. I would look at those things.
I do believe hydroponics is a very important thing. I
know we dabbled with it and it is probably the bad word for a PC here to say it,
but we dabbled with it. I think the concept was perhaps the best thing ever
done. I think the implementation was perhaps one of the worst things that were
ever done. Where it was located, the crop that they were trying to grow at the
time and maybe even some of the partnerships that were developed at the time
were questionable. But the potential for the industry and the actual technology,
to me, was second to none.
I got to tour it at the time and talked to some of the
actual workers that were there, who were – it is ironic – rank-and-file people.
These were people who were in the farming industry themselves who went to work
there because they wanted to learn the technology. But just the skill set they
brought, adding to the technology, it was amazing some of the stuff.
I saw some 55-year old farmers from Central
Newfoundland come up with ways with the hydroponics, the way to run lines so
that water would come in better and the vapours would be better for growing as a
process. These were probably people who never had any technical training in the
agricultural industry. It tells you about the innovation of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians when they're in their element. The fortunate thing in this
province, our element is basically, in my opinion, in every industry. There's
nothing that we don't have the capabilities to excel in. That was another one.
I do look at the Greene report. I've analyzed it with
the budget. I see there are subtle nuances; there are subtle adjustments into
where Greene is. I'm not in any way, shape or form criticizing that, because I
don't see that as a bad thing. You've heard me say in the past – and I think
some of my colleagues here have said it – maybe we needed to move a little bit
quicker on some of the things we're doing, but that all depends. Maybe there is
some heavier movement in this budget, it's just we're not quite sure where it is
or the information is not all out there yet. Or maybe it's not the timing for
the information to be out.
Don't forget, a budget is an evolving process that
takes 12 months. Sometimes, as they say, it comes to fruition on month 11 before
you realize the benefits of that. So I'm giving benefit of the doubt that
there's some more information that maybe can be shared with us that may turn us
to believe that this will take us in the right direction. I'm hopeful that the
Greene report doesn't become the bible for the administration to set all of its
tone. I would hope it would become one of the frameworks, but not the only one
that you refer to when you're making decisions around the future economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the path forward.
That's not to take away anything from Moya Greene or
the 65 appendices of information that went to them, because a lot of them – I've
known some of the orchestrators of them, the architects of them. I've believed
in a lot of what they've written. What they've studied and what they've looked
at has been very credible. There are parts of that which have already been
implemented. There are parts that were implemented and unfortunately let go
before it got to a point where it showed that it would be viable. That
unfortunately becomes a little bit about politics. Sometimes you'll only half
implement something because you're afraid of the political backlash. That
sometimes does more damage than it does well.
We need to be diligent enough and, I suppose, strong
enough to make decisions that may not be popular. They may not be popular
immediately, they may not be popular with specific groups and they may not be
popular with a financial sector of our society or a particular governance
agency. But if they're backed up with facts, data and proper analysis, and they
fit within a plan that actually shows the benefit to all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians – regardless if some may benefit more from it but at the end of the
day, the major benefactors are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – then we
have to stand our ground.
I've said it before in this House and I'll continue to
say it: We've taken that stand that if there's a collective approach to doing
something that improves our financial situation, improves our competiveness on
the world market, if it improves our industries to be able to be globally known
and acknowledged, if it improves the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
have more control over their own assets, then we're here to collaborate and find
a way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
If
it means potentially we all have to take a hit from certain sectors in the
general public, well then you know what, we're willing to do that. I can tell
you, everybody on this side of this House here wants as their legacy that when
they walk out of this door they can hold their heads high and say, at the end of
the day, we left this place in better shape than when we found it.
Every society should look to do that and I think we all
aspire to do that. I don't think any politician before us, or any of these
pictures of any of the individuals who sat in that chair, Mr. Speaker, didn't
aspire for the same thing. We may have different approaches; we may have
different philosophies. We may even have different moral beliefs, but I would
hope the biggest stance and the biggest commonality would be at the end of the
day we found a way to do what was right, rectify some of the wrongs and put us
on the right path forward, so that our successors are at a good place to be able
to continue moving things forward.
I wanted to talk about some of the other things.
Particularly, what people don't know, my real passion – I shouldn't say real
passion, but one of my favourite passions is and value I think as an industry
that we very seldom talk about – is the not-for-profit sector. I think the
community sector, what they do from an economic point of view, what they do from
a social point of view, what they do from a mental and physical health point of
view and what they do to even drive and support our infrastructure is second to
none.
I think we sometimes dismiss them – and I say we as a
general society – because we always feel, well, they only exist because
government had given them some money to start, or there's a special program for
them where it's easy for them to get up and running. But I think people forget
if you really look at budget lines of any not-for-profit organization, any
agency that government sponsors through some way, shape or form that's not an
entrenched Crown agency or board or commission, are, at this point, probably
nowhere from 1 to 5 per cent receiving government funds. They may get a load of
money that they're getting from different agencies and that, but at the end of
the day they generate much more than they receive from the coffers of the
general public here. That's a testament to them.
If you look at some of the agencies that are out there
now – and we have a multitude of volunteer agencies – they might have four or
five staff, but they have 12, 15 or 20 volunteers who are almost the same as
staff. A lot of them come with a skill set that they've learned somewhere else,
from an educational thing or an experience point of view, which they then pass
on that doesn't cost five cents to the coffers of the general public, yet
provides an unbelievable set of supports in this province.
I want to tie that in. I want to talk about one
particular organization because I think it should be the crux of what we're
doing in this House now. I say the crux because I'm talking about an
organization that serves young people. If we don't start thinking about the
future of our young people, if it's about the oil industry, if it's the tech
industry, if it's about health care, if it's about education or if it's about
any industry that we're talking – the fishing industry, the forestry industry,
whatever it may be. If we don't find ways to keep young people engaged, keep
them active in their communities – and it could be in any rural community from
Nain, Labrador, to Bay Roberts in Conception Bay and all communities in between
– then we're going to miss an opportunity and we're going to be in hard shape in
the next generation or so. That's a reality of why we need to do some of these
things.
I'm just going to read a letter because I want to tie
it into one particular organization. I'm going to talk about them; I'm going to
give them some kudos because I think they do great work. I think they represent
what we're trying to do in this House of Assembly, collectively, as a province.
In every little nook and cranny and every little corner, they do things that are
above and beyond and thinking outside the box to engage people and address some
of the social and economic needs of people in this province.
I'm just going to read this: Since the first CYN site
opened their doors in 2001, the Community Youth Network has played a pivotal
role in enhancing the well-being of youth and reducing poverty in our province.
This work is important, as the social and emotional prosperity of our youth is a
direct predictor of the economic health and quality of life of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
This past year has been marked by social and economic
turmoil. Despite these challenges, community organizations nimbly continue to
provide much-needed supports to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Organizations
comprising the Community Youth Network across the province pull together and
advanced and involved as many people as possible to ensure uninterrupted access
to valuable resources for our young people.
As demonstrated in this report, the dedication and
passion of the people working within the Community Youth Network was on full
display this year, as they not only continued regular programming, but added new
initiatives to meet the challenging needs of youth and their communities during
the global health pandemic.
This annual report provides a snapshot of just some of
the innovative programs delivered by the Community Youth Network and their
positive impact on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This letter
was signed by Premier Dr. Andrew Furey.
That speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier
understands, as we do, the value of organizations and not-for-profits, but
particularly those who work for young people and, in some case, challenging
young people. Not only do they do valuable work in all parts of our province.
There are Community Youth Networks in Nain. They're in coastal areas in
Labrador. They're in the Northern Peninsula. They're in the Burin Peninsula.
They're in the heart of Central Newfoundland and Labrador. They're in the Avalon
Peninsula area. They're in the St. John's urban areas, the Corner Brook area.
They're everywhere here.
They represent what we need to see. What we need to see
here is a collective approach to solving our problems in an innovative way. Who
better than young people to be innovative and creative and think outside the
box. Not label people for either coming with a different perspective or not
being cognizant to be able to jump right on board with a particular idea.
I want to talk about the Community Youth Network
because, to me, it becomes of relevance here. They were established in 2001,
another tumultuous time for us economically. If people remember what happened,
that was the offset of our financial woes that took us for the next five or six
years. I look back and compare; it's a similar situation we're in. There was an
investment at the time and I give credit; it was the former administration.
Premier Grimes saw the value of working with the federal government, of
leveraging some money to find a new way and a creative way of improving the
lives of young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That began a journey that saw expansion to 40 sites in
Newfoundland and Labrador but gave communities stake and control over their own
destiny in a lot of cases. The core funding that was given by government was
only a small proportion of what they managed to raise, what they managed to
leverage from corporations and agencies. They developed their own partnerships
with the federal government that we weren't even aware of to bring programs and
services and employ people. That, to me, sets the template of where we are in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We've got an agency that deals with everything from
education to health care, to mental health, to re-employment, to social
engagement, to community supports, to every sector that you would think that a
good society needs to have as its key component of the fabrics of inclusion.
They've done that with support from government and it's continued to happen. It
continued under the previous PC administration; it is continuing now under the
Liberal administration. I think it's a predecessor of what would be done and it
sets the tone for where we need to go. I say this because when we ran into the
same situations that we have now, they ran into that then. People didn't give
up. People didn't say: We need to cut everything; we need to cut all of our
spending. Society got creative and governments got creative at the time of
putting money in the right direction.
I keep going back to saying sometimes you need to spend
money to make money. At the time, putting $3 million or $4 million in a program
like that – keep in mind, now, in 2001, the budgets weren't at $8 billion. That
was substantial at the time. The fallout in a positive manner since then, the
hundreds of millions of dollars that have been generated from that but the
hundreds of millions of dollars – or the immeasurable, priceless services that
have been provided to keep young people on the right track, who are no longer
the young people of the day; who are the leaders in our society now. I ran into
one of the individuals who was a young person on one of the CYNs that I knew
years ago who is now a key person with Verafin. We're all very aware of what
that's done to put Newfoundland and Labrador on the map.
That tells you about what agencies like that. I'm
specifically saying the CYNs, but I'm using them as the example of the potential
we have here for giving communities an opportunity and the resources and the
supports to take control and have a major stake in designing their own futures
and letting them offset some of the services and that which we may not be able
to have or provide because the resources are just not there. There are going to
be decisions made on how you provide various services in various communities
with our geography.
Finding creative ways, bringing in partnerships,
letting the general public know that we value their input but, more importantly,
we value their resource to be able to take a leadership role in providing
services and partnering with them. We have continuously talked over here about
developing partnerships with every entity in our society. Developing
partnerships with those outside of our own jurisdiction, we're not adverse to
that. Developing partnerships on a global perspective, which would have probably
never been heard of 20 years ago, but Newfoundland and Labrador, the innovative
way we do things, how we have made a mark on the world markets, no matter what
it may be, gives us that opportunity to do that.
To first make that work, we have to do that in-house.
We have to be able to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and those
who have a skill set in this province are engaged more in helping us solve our
own problems, our own financial woes; helping us find creative, innovative ways
to provide the same services or better quality service more equitably and in a
quicker manner and more open to the masses to do that. We need to find a way
with technology to engage as many people as possible to get their feedback.
I get that when we start engaging the general public,
we're going to get feedback and we're going to get a lot of negative feedback
because some people, for the sake of being negative, will only talk about the
negative stuff. But let's dissect that. Let's talk about those who are going to
share great creative ideas; are going to share their experience with us; and are
going to share their optimism, the same that we all have in this House of
Assembly, and I would hope most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have.
While we all get emails – and we all get them – where
they're upset over a certain circumstance or a certain decision or a certain
view that we may have, if you read closely, the underlying thing is people are
doing that. They're lashing out or they're sharing their opinion because they
want this province to flourish. The want it to excel. They want to make sure
that we're told we either need to rethink what we've done or we need to continue
with the stance that we've taken.
That's on both sides of this House. That's not isolated
to the Opposition that everybody's going to rah-rah because what we said is the
only way to do it. Far from it. We know for every action that we have, there's a
reaction, and every view we have, somebody has a counterview. Somewhere in the
middle, I think, is the right view. That's how we do the right thing and get to
the right end result.
We've been doing a lot of good debate on our budget
here. We have a lot of dialogue. We've dissected some things. I may be
corrected, but I think on this side there's still some information that we would
like to have for us to really know where this budget is going to take us. We're
extremely optimistic that the province does have a bright future if the right
plan is put in play. We'd like to be able to say this is the right play and the
right plan, but we're not quite there yet.
Maybe your caucus is there, and I hope you are, because
maybe you have a little bit more access to some information. Maybe the Minister
of Finance can over the next week or so, while we're still in debate here and
when we talk on some of the bills – that may make it clear to us. That'll be
even better. That'll be perfect, because we don't want to not support things in
this House because we don't have information. That's not right and it's not fair
to anybody.
If we don't agree with it, then we'll have trouble
supporting it and we'll tell you that. If we agree with it, then it will be
based on the fact that the information was relevant and clarified any challenges
or any concerns that we may have had.
I do ask, in the next week or so, as we're into our
last week or so of debate on the budget, and particularly all the bills that are
attached to it before the budget itself can be fully implemented, that if there
are questions asked, as clear as possible, the information be shared; if there
is information that we didn't ask for because we didn't think it was a part of
it but can be of a benefit to us understanding how the budget is going to move
us to the next level, please share that. We ask that.
We do ask, at the end of the day, that nothing be taken
personally if we're challenging something around a particular line item. Or what
would be thought to be the benefit of a particular program if it's funded, or if
there's a particular program that's going to be cut, if we challenge whether or
not we think there is still benefit to having that program. I'd like to have
open dialogue where somebody explains to me and to this side of the House that
you know what, we've analyzed it, we've looked at it, but this is not the best –
while it still might serve a purpose, there is another way of doing the same
thing, getting better outcomes and probably doing it for more people.
I'm a big user of the economy of scale. If you can find
a more economical way to do more with less, then that's the best approach
forward. There's nobody that will not agree to that because if you save on one
side, you either have the ability to address your own financial needs, or put
that money in another program that also benefits the people of this province.
As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to
hearing the dialogue and the discussion on the number of bills that we'll talk
about over the next week or so. I do solemnly ask that we try to find the best
path forward for all of us. This is a very important budget. It will be the
framework for where we go over the next four or five years. There's no quick fix
to our financial situation, we all know that, but we have to find the path
forward.
Hopefully we can find that. I look forward to further
debate on the budget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, let me thank the hon. Member opposite for
mentioning the third sector, the community sector, who are not only important
contributors to our social fabric, but provide a model of cross-sectional
approach that we should all support, grow and aspire to be more like. It's not
only an important social space but an incredible economic driver that has good
returns for the province socially and fiscally. I echo and commend the Member
opposite for recognizing the importance of such a sector.
Budget 2021
marks a key step in the beginning of the transformation of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker. This spirit is reflected in the very title of the budget
itself: Change starts here. It shows the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that our
government is prepared to make bold decisions to address the fiscal challenges
we face. Those bold decisions are and will continue to be evidence based,
balanced and measured. This budget is about taking control of the provincial
finances and sending a signal that we are transforming government and
modernizing for today's world.
We're taking immediate action while recognizing that
this is not the time for severe austerity. We're supporting families and
businesses, investing in growth industries to build our economy and finding
smarter ways to deliver critical services. Newfoundland and Labrador, we didn't
get here overnight and there is no single budget or magic bullet that will fix
everything and turn it all around. I'm sure every Member of this House really
wishes there was.
It's impossible to talk about this budget, Mr. Speaker,
without recognizing and thanking the incredible leadership the Deputy Premier,
Finance Minister and President of Treasury Board has shown in putting this
together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Working with the stakeholder groups and organizations, listening and taking that
feedback into account, not to mention my own pen on her speech at times, which
I'm sure was frustrating.
I must also acknowledge and thank all the dedicated,
hard-working people within the department who worked around the clock, taking
time away from their families and their personal lives to do this important
piece of work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I
hope that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Members of this House of
Assembly can see that we are all, as a government and the members of the public
service, grateful for the opportunity to serve you at this critical juncture.
Our government is fully focused on building a brighter and stable future for our
beautiful province, as evidenced in this budget.
Let's take a look at some of the big pieces in
Budget 2021, starting with the
transformations. Mr. Speaker, transformation is powerful and so is the outcome.
We are taking steps towards a sustainable fiscal future. Change, as we all know,
can be hard, but it gives us the opportunity to discover new ways of delivering
services, become more efficient and agile and become better versions of
ourselves. Change is good; change is necessary.
Budget 2021
sets direction to modernize and transform government, to improve service
delivery and to address financial concerns. We are currently evaluating Nalcor
in order to streamline and remove duplications and, ultimately, save money for
the Provincial Treasury. We are merging Crown corporations into core government,
beginning with the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and
NL911. We're taking steps to integrate the Newfoundland and Labrador English
School District into the Department of Education to make better use of
investments in education and ensure that investments target the classrooms and
teachers, not administration and executives.
When it comes to health care, we know that we need to
focus on better outcomes and better value for the billions we spend in that
system every single year. The corporate services of the four regional health
authorities are being integrated to streamline the delivery of functions, such
as payroll, finance, accounting, human resources, information management and
technology and procurement.
In partnership with business, social enterprises and
other organizations, we will establish a process to maintain and improve service
delivery through joint solutions. This will more effectively deliver facilities
management, provincial registries and ferries. We need to spend our money
wisely, Mr. Speaker, invest in the social determinants of health and support
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in living healthier lifestyles to be well
overall. That encompasses both physical and mental health. Any savings found in
the health care system by working more efficiently, by doing things better,
smarter and modern will only go back into the people of this province. These
transformations will address our province's significant debt profile and reduce
our expenditure on debt servicing.
The projected deficit of 2021, as we know, is $826
million. An improvement of $1 billion from
Budget 2020. This is the first step in our government's plan to return to a
fiscal balance within five years. Budget
2021 targets reaching surplus by 2026-27. That's a target we believe we can
reach if we all work together.
There are plenty of other smart, responsible measures
in this budget that will help us get there, Mr. Speaker, starting with the
interest costs on our debt service alone, one of our largest expenditures. By
taking a more proactive approach to Treasury management, our government will
reduce debt expense by up to $10 million annually. Being more active in the
capital markets will consequently result in more efficient borrowing.
We also updated our income tax structure to ensure our
province's high-income earners are paying their fair share. In this year's
budget, we are adjusting tax brackets for higher income earners and creating new
brackets for those making over $250,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. For anyone with
taxable income of less than $135,973, there are no personal income tax changes.
The changes will bring in an estimated $15.3 million in additional revenue,
while keeping us comparable and competitive to taxation in Atlantic Canada.
One of the initiatives I'm really excited about in this
budget, Mr. Speaker, is the Physical Activity Tax Credit. This will provide a
refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 per family. This credit is estimated at $7
million. It will be a helpful incentive for families as they look to access
sport and recreational activities and become healthier. It also holds the added
benefit of supporting local health and wellness industries. From the soccer
pitch to the dance studio to martial arts dojos and beyond, physical activity
helps young people develop, build confidence and practise leadership, and offers
a sense of enjoyment and well-being to people of all ages.
Physical activity is important in my own life and for
my own health and mental wellness. I need it more now than ever before. We are
fortunate to spend a lot of time as a family at the hockey rink or on the soccer
pitch. This credit is designed to help make it easier for families and encourage
them to participate in physical activities and healthy lifestyles.
But it's for people of all ages too, and it's important
to remember that. Seniors benefit greatly from increased movement and
socialization, and we hope this tax credit encourages seniors to participate in
physical activities in their communities that will help their physical and
mental health.
Budget 2021
includes investments to grow the economy and create jobs for a sustainable path
forward, Mr. Speaker. The past year has been tough – and we know it – for
families, communities and all industries. It's our responsibility to support the
resiliency so that Newfoundland and Labrador emerges from the pandemic a healthy
and prosperous place. The sense of hope and optimism in our province is
palpable.
The spending in
Budget 2021 is smart spending, strong investments. It's a continuation of
spending to ensure that community groups, organizations, seniors, teachers,
nurses, all those important, hard-working people in our province have the
resources they need to do their critical work and meet their full potential.
Our government has committed $30 million for tourism
and hospitality supports to alleviate pressures experienced by COVID-19.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
We
all know that the tourism and hospitality industry was hit particularly hard by
COVID-19 and we must be there to support them now. We have been hearing really
positive things from operators now that we have some light at the end of the
tunnel, reopening, welcoming family, friends and tourists back to Newfoundland
and Labrador. Getting together again.
Our government has allocated $20 million for small
business and community organization assistance to help with increased costs and
losses as a result of the pandemic – another group hit hard by the pandemic. Our
government has continued to show its commitment to small businesses and
community organizations. Like the Members opposite, we see the value the work of
these members do for our economy and our social fabric.
This budget has close to $600 million for
infrastructure projects to help improve access to services and create more jobs
for people in this province. We know that access to the Internet is critical and
we've seen it now in this pandemic perhaps more than ever before. It is a
priority for this government and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
for families, for small businesses, for health care, for rural communities, Mr.
Speaker. We hear this over and over when travelling the province and connecting
with people, from Cow Head, down to the Boot and across the Island and Labrador.
The pandemic has highlighted again just how important
connectivity, communication, virtually is for people, not just in the province
or the country, but, indeed, all over the world. We have committed $25 million
over the next three years to improve connectivity through cellular and broadband
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Importantly, we will use government investments to leverage that private sector,
maximizing the impact and the connectivity.
Our province is ripe with opportunities across sectors,
and this budget makes strategic investments to ensure we maximize our collective
force and potential. We have allocated $27 million to support economic
development initiatives, including research and development, commercialization,
regional development and business growth activities such as investment in our
growing – thriving – technology sector.
An investment in the technology sector is an investment
in all sectors, from fishery to mining to education and health care. The digital
economy is providing economic growth and better services throughout the province
and we are leading the country in this regard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
This budget also allocates $10 million for the film and television Equity
Investment Program. This is an area of particular interest to me, again, because
we see the potential for growth here, Mr. Speaker. The film and television
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is significant, attracting a number of
productions. People want to shoot here. The landscape alone draws interest from
all around the world.
During the pandemic we made history with two TV
productions happening at the same time for the first time. And it's only going
up from here.
This budget also features an additional $2.5 million
for mineral geoscience data collection and interpretation, and $5 million for
ArtsNL to support the incredibly talented artists in Newfoundland and Labrador –
the people who help enrich the culture that makes this place so special, draws
people here from around the world and makes us all feel special when we're
elsewhere, Mr. Speaker.
Additional spending in
Budget 2021 reflects federal government support, specifically
focused on certain areas. These significant investments are a direct result of
our government's close working relationship with our partners in Ottawa,
including the $320 million in Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Oil and Gas
Industry Recovery Assistance Fund and Safe Restart funding for municipalities
and schools.
Mr. Speaker, this budget marks the beginning of a new
era of transformation, of collaboration, of economic recovery and growth. In
that same vein, today also begins the transition phase of the
Together. Again. reopening plan.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will see select public health measures start to
lift. The light at the end of the tunnel is drawing near.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
On
June 23, we are welcoming Atlantic Canadians to our province and as early as
July 1 we will be reuniting with family and friends from across our great
country. This is possible thanks to the continued expertise of Dr. Fitzgerald
and the whole team at Public Health; the dedication of our front-line health
care workers; and the efforts, frankly, of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
for following the public health guidelines and getting vaccinated.
Our vaccine rollout continues at an impressive pace and
we are well positioned to address the continued impacts of COVID-19 on our
population. I know, Mr. Speaker, from my conversations with friends around the
world, we are the envy.
In Budget 2021,
we are taking the responsible step of continuing to allocate $100 million to
respond to demands for such things as personal protective equipment, testing and
supporting vaccinations. This will ensure that we can continue to lift
restrictions responsibly and all come together again.
Mr. Speaker, this budget set the course to achieve
fiscal stability by commencing transformations to ensure we spend within our
means while delivering quality service. It is not about doing less; it is about
doing more, better. It ensures a return to fiscal balance within five years.
This budget makes strategic economic investments to guide growth in key
industries. It supports those that need a hand up, including those who have been
disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.
Once again, I would like to thank the Deputy Premier,
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and her team for their
exceptional efforts in delivering this budget and setting the course, Mr.
Speaker.
Change starts here, with this budget, with everybody in
this House and with this government, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, it is moved and seconded that this House approves in
general the budgetary policy of this government.
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:
Seeing all Members present, all those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr.
Furey, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Coady, Ms. Howell, Mr. Byrne,
Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Davis, Mr. Abbott, Ms. Dempster, Ms. Pam Parsons,
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Hogan, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warr, Mr. Pike, Ms.
Stoyles, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lane, Mr. Trimper.
SPEAKER:
All
those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
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. Speaker, the ayes: 24; the nays: 15.
SPEAKER:
I
declare this motion carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Bill 8.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I received a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor.
SPEAKER:
All
rise.
Dated the 11th day of June 2021:
As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of
the Province for the year ending 31 March 2022 by way of further Supply and in
accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of
Assembly.
Sgd: ____________________________________
Lieutenant-Governor (Judy May Foote, PC, ONL)
Please be seated.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Premier, that the message
together with a bill be referred to a Committee of Supply.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply
and that I do now leave the Chair.
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 debating Bill 8, An Act For 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
“Be it resolved
by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:
“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 $4,565,934,100.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands.
I'm sorry, the Chair recognizes the hon. Member for
Bonavista.
S.
COADY:
Do
I speak first?
CHAIR:
I'm
sorry I didn't recognize the minister.
The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board. I need to see hands up.
S.
COADY:
Thank you.
I have to wave more.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and thank you for your
indulgence. I promise I won't be long.
This is the
Supply Act, 2021, for main Supply.
It's introduced following the completion of the budget debate. The main Supply
bill is routine and an administrative measure. I will say that. An approval of
this bill will ensure funds are available to meet government expenditures during
the 2021-22 fiscal year and provide sufficient legislative authority for
government to meet its financial obligations.
The requirement to introduce debate and pass a main
Supply bill to cover government expenditures during the fiscal year is a
requirement, Mr. Chair, of the
Constitution Act, 1867 and the
Financial Administration Act. The
introduction of this bill has no incremental impact on the province's financial
position in '21-'22 beyond what is included in the budget of 2021-22.
The total amount of the main Supply bill is
$4,565,934,100. This, when combined with the already approved $3.5 billion from
Interim Supply, gives a total of $8,024,380,400. This, of course, ties to the
total amount voted on in Statement III of the Estimates.
Now, Mr. Chair, you will recall that there were two
Interim Supply bills approved for the fiscal year. Interim Supply, Bill 1, the
amount from April 1 to May 31 was $2,086,721,900. Then Interim Supply Bill 2,
which ran from June 1 to July 31, was $1,371,724,400. The total of both amounts
is $3,458,446,300. The total time frame covered by both the Interim Supply bills
was four months or 33 per cent of the fiscal year. Now, the main Supply bill
will provide further funding for the remaining of the fiscal year up to March
31, 2022.
The total amount voted, $8,024,000,000, represents the
total amount, total gross cash expenditures minus payments that are preapproved
by statute such as interest payments, deferred pension contributions, debt –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
S.
COADY:
–
management expenses and the salaries of the Auditor General and Comptroller
General. The highest amounts can be attributed to health care, always the
highest level of expenditure, which is not abnormal, and Innovation, Energy and
Technology; a large increase in main Supply due to 100 per cent funded projects,
which have no overall impact on our deficit.
So, Mr. Chair, I will say that in the Schedule attached
to the bill under the Head of Expenditure there was a movement of a title of
Municipal Affairs. I will be moving a slight amendment just to make sure we have
it in order. It's supposed to be in alphabetical order and the numbers line up.
This total amount is still the same, but I will move that at the appropriate
time.
I think, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks by
saying to the House that we've had a good number of hours debating budget. I
look forward to their interactions on this main Supply bill and listening to the
issues that are faced in their districts and hearing more about their concerns.
I do appreciate the fact that the budget is now passed and this is falling from
that main Supply.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The main Supply, as the minister just stated, is the
final step of the budget; $4.5 billion is the amount that's needed. The sister
bill that is coming, which would be the loan Supply, is what money we'll need to
borrow up to March of next year. That is coming either tonight or tomorrow and
that is $1.7 billion.
The next bill that will come will be the one that we're
going to vote on, Mr. Chair, and that's what we're going to need to borrow in
order to see through all the government functioning up to the end of March of
next year. That's a significant amount of money that we'll need permission to
borrow. I'm sure we'll play the capital markets and we'll do whatever we can to
make sure that we get the best rate we possibly can, but the people in the
District of Bonavista may be surprised that we do need to borrow that much money
this year to see us through.
The Premier mentioned that we need bold decisions. They
ought to be balanced and measured. I think all MHAs had a magazine that was
delivered in our mail slots. It was the
Atlantic Business Magazine and that was the March-April issue. The last page
in that magazine was an article by John Risley. The title of the article was:
Newfoundland and Labrador's budget cuts will be painful and unavoidable. That
was the title.
What he had mentioned as key things that we ought to be
doing; one was immigration. We need to grow our population, which is sound. He
said that we need to invest in small business start-ups to grow our economy. We
need to see something that's tangible to make sure we grow our small businesses
in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is quite a revenue generator for our
economy. That was there.
Then he wanted to know where the spending cuts were.
We've heard some of these tonight. We talked about the merging of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Eastern School District with the Department of
Education to find efficiencies in the backroom financing and management of the
finances. But what is gleaned from those savings will be going straight to the
classrooms, which is what I would celebrate. Any savings, it's not going to go
against the $1.7 billion that we're going to need to borrow, but it's going to
go to make sure that those classrooms that need the extra resources, they will
be attainable.
One thing that Risley did suggest – I'm not sure if the
minister read that article or not –was: “Set up a transition fund by borrowing
against the incremental proceeds available when the benefits of a revised
Churchill Falls agreement begin to flow.” Whether the exact figure is that in
2041 we have $800 million to $1.2 billion coming into our coffers – if that is
accurate, then what Risley is saying, that a transition fund can help bridge us
between now and then, it ought to be a consideration.
I want to read the last paragraph that he states. We've
talked a lot about Terra Nova today and yesterday. I guess with no announcement
being forthcoming today we may be talking about Terra Nova tomorrow. John Risley
states: “And, before I forget, make sure the door is wide open to exploration
and production plans for the province's offshore energy sector.” Make sure the
door is wide open to exploration and production plans for the province's
offshore energy sector.
He says: “The world will wean itself off hydrocarbons,
but in the meantime why does it make sense to hand the oil market to foreign
interests where environmental regulations are much less restrictive than they
are here?” That's a little redundant because we heard that being stated as well,
and he names Venezuela.
He thought the carbon emissions of the oil that we
would have are far better than what they would be in those markets that will be
all there to step in to supply the parts of the world for the next decades.
Maybe it should be something that we ought to look at as a country, certainly as
a province, to market our oil, our energy sector. While we go towards the green
sector, then we know that we're doing it as carbon-friendly as we possibly
could.
One thing amiss is that we don't talk a lot about the
fishery. The fishery now is my new portfolio, and while I dearly love education
and to discuss education, the fishery is one now that I would look at that we
have a wonderful renewable resource out in our oceans, a wonderful renewable
resource, but I would say it is collapsing. I would think in the House if we
look at how much we've heard from Fisheries in this sitting, the 50th sitting of
the House of Assembly, not a lot.
I recall it being stated by a past premier of this
province that they're on the record as saying – and I quote – “The biggest
mistake of Confederation in 1949 was the ceding of the Fishery to almost total
Federal control.” I've said some figures and I hope my memory serves me well.
When we look at the fishery being a $1-billion industry – and I think $33
billion in the fishery goes towards the GDP of our country, Canada, and we're
producing a little over $1 billion – then I would say that while it's good, many
fishers and many people in the province would say it's not good enough. We ought
to be doing far better than we are doing.
The principle of adjacency: When we had the Estimates,
Mr. Chair, I mentioned to the minister at the time that I would hope that he
champions the principle of adjacency. Adjacency would indicate – much the same
as when John Crosbie and the government of the time championed adjacency and we
saw the benefit of the Atlantic Accord, where we became the primary
beneficiaries of our oil resources – something similar to that in relation to
the fishery.
I know the terms of agreement that we had in '49; I
know that's a tough journey ahead, but we have to attempt to make sure that we
have a bigger voice in our fishery than what we currently have. My understanding
from talking to some people and trying to get up to speed on the fishery so I
can come here and try to talk something that would make some semblance of sense
in the House is from the learned people who had stated that the fishery, back
when the ground fishery was on, in the 200-mile limit, they thought that Canada
generally, before the collapse of the fishery, followed the historical
dependence. They looked at the adjacency; they looked at the economic viability
and we had the majority of the share within the 200-mile limit of the groundfish
stock.
Then, of course, came the collapse of the stock. Then
in the mid-'90s came the shellfish industry – the very lucrative shellfish
industry. From the people I spoke with, from that point in time on we've seen an
erosion of the adjacency of the principle of historical dependence and we find
now that larger portions of the quota that would be inside our 200-mile limit
are going to other provinces of Canada.
I would say to you we are a very sharing type in
Newfoundland and Labrador but I would say, at what cost, Mr. Chair? We are a
very sharing group, but at what cost do we continue to know that we can't go
into other jurisdictions in Canada and fish within their waters, but they can
certainly come here to Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not totally opposed to
it, but I've since asked DFO to send and release and provide for me the figures
of relation to the allocation of quotas within our 200-mile limit.
I would say to you when we get that, the data will
show, if the experts that I talk with are correct, that we're seeing a
diminishing return on our allocation and what the total allowable catch would be
in our 200-mile limit. The minister may be able to speak to that at some point
in time in the near future as well because he may have access to that data. Keep
in mind, I haven't asked the provincial body, which I probably ought to have;
I've gone through DFO to make that request to see where the allocation of the
figures would be.
What are the some of the differences with other
jurisdictions? I stated with the seals and I said I wasn't going to talk about
seals tonight, and I'm not, but I look at other jurisdictions that we have. In
2020 all of Newfoundland had a 12,000-metric-tons quota of cod – 12,000. That's
not a lot of cod that we harvest and move. Keep in mind that in other
jurisdictions, like Norway and Denmark, they are significantly, significantly
more than that. In fact, they're between 150,000 to 200,000 metric tons. Their
cod industry and fishery are doing well.
In a world where we have global warming and we know
that we're struggling with those elements, we find that other jurisdictions are
striving while we're losing our resource. Keep in mind – I'm just going to slip
in one thing about seals – remember that in six days they eat the total amount
of what we harvest in our waters, 200,000 metric tons.
One would say, we've sat in this House of Assembly, the
50th House of Assembly, haven't heard one word in relation to the urgency that
we must have to save our stock. Iceland, 200,000 metric tons, with warming of
waters, climate change – 200,000 metric tons. One figure which I had, which I
think is emblematic of where we are, we've discovered that we've got a market
for mackerel, a new species – relatively new – that we have markets for. But let
me share with you what our catch rate is and our quota for mackerel. I'd like
for everybody to remain seated, because our quota for mackerel is 4,000 metric
tons – 4,000 metric tons. But I hear somebody singing out –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
How
many?
C.
PARDY:
Four thousand metric tons.
I hear somebody asking, well, what does Iceland – what
are their metric tons? What is their catch rate? I just happen to have the
answer for that: 400,000 metric tons.
The minister had stated that his background is the
fishery, that he's from a fishing community. The minister says: Come join me.
Speak about it any time on the floor of the House of Assembly; join him in his
effort. I'd like to join him. All he needs to do is just invite us and say: Join
me and let's tackle it together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm certainly delighted this evening to have my first
opportunity to speak to this bill. Of course, this being a money bill, we kind
of have the flexibility to speak about whatever we want. There are a lot of
subjects I could cover and a lot that I probably will cover before the night is
out.
I just want to talk specifically to the budget, which
is good, I guess, seeing as how this is a budget bill; this is Supply, basically
allowing government now to be able to actually pay the bills.
I just want to, first of all, say as it relates to the
budget, I said from day one when I was elected as an independent Member – even
the last time when I was – I said I committed to myself I would do my best to
respect decorum; to not be partisan or political in my comments, as best as I
possibly could; and to attempt to be the voice of my constituents; and to be
fair and reasonable and balanced in my approach, in times supporting government,
in times not supporting government. I think the votes will show that since I've
been an independent, there have been times where I've voted with the government,
been times when I voted with the Official Opposition, times I voted with the
Third Party, because I'm just trying to make decisions based on what I feel is
right and what is in the best interest of my constituents.
On this particular budget vote – I just want to be sort
of clear on that one – what I could have done – and you've been around long
enough; you see how things work. The reality of it is that the government has a
majority. I could have easily voted against the budget knowing that the budget
would go through anyway; we wouldn't topple the government. Then if anyone came
to me and said, B'y, that's shocking about what they're planning on doing for
MUN, I could say: Well, I didn't vote for the budget. They could say that's
shocking about the taxes on whatever; I didn't vote for the budget. That's
shocking what they're doing on sugary drinks; well, I didn't vote for the
budget. I could have taken that approach.
I could basically let the budget pass, but then vote
against it anyways so anyone who had a complaint about the budget, I'd be able
to say I didn't support it. But that's not the approach I'm going to take. It's
not the approach I took, because ultimately I don't see any major issues,
personally, with the budget.
Are there some details lacking in the Budget Speech
itself? Yes, without question. There are a lot of things in that Budget Speech
that talked about this transformation that the details are not there. By and
large, none of those things are actually in the budget in terms of an actual
budget item to vote on.
The budget is kind of a stay the course. There are no
major tax hikes, so to speak. There are some there and no one likes any taxes,
of course, but there's nothing off-the-wall major. In terms of reduction in
services and so on, I don't see anything major there either. There are no
massive layoffs or anything like that.
I think the Leader of the Official Opposition even said
that from that point of view, keeping the economy going and not shocking the
economy and not being drastic, he acknowledged that himself that he agreed with
that. I agree with it, as well.
I didn't see any major things there that I would not
support the budget, but I would agree with anyone over here who perhaps didn't
support the budget who would say the details are the issue. No details in what
the plans are. Well, I said from day one that as these – quote, unquote –
transformations occur and we start looking into this and looking into that and
looking into something else, then I will make my views loud and clear at the
time on a case-by-case basis depending on what is done and how it was done and,
of course, the details around it.
We know there are going to be things that have to be
done. That's the other reality. It would be hypocritical to be here on the one
hand saying spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, and we need more money for this,
more money for that and more money for something else, and then by the same
token to say: Oh, my God, we have to borrow $1.7 billion this year, to add to
our already crippling debt. We didn't need Dame Moya Greene to tell us any of
this. The Auditor General has been telling us this for years. We didn't need the
Auditor General to tell us. Common sense, sure. You can see how the debt is
climbing. We have a population of a half million people, 516,000 or 520,000 or
whatever it is, somewhere in that neighbourhood. We're up to our necks in debt.
So, yes, something has to change.
Now, this budget, one would argue – and I've heard from
a lot of people who said: My God, the government is not doing anything to tackle
the debt in this particular budget; they've cut literally nothing. They've
talked about doing this and doing that, but they haven't done a whole lot. I've
gotten that comment from a lot of people, actually. I just want to be clear:
That's why I support the budget. But I support it and I also support a lot of
the proposals, if you will, the part of this transformation. I support a lot of
those things, in principle, if they're done right. I look at the idea of the
back-office functions of the four health care authorities.
Nobody here in this House with any – well, I shouldn't
say with any common sense; that wouldn't fair, because people can have differing
views for differing reasons. I think most people would recognize the fact that
if you have four lots of people basically doing the same functions in four
different locations, if you can bring them all together in theory, there's no
reason why you can't create economies of scale and so on and you can't create
efficiencies and save money while still doing what needs to be done. So when we
look at that, it makes sense to me. Something has to give.
We look at Nalcor, and I know that I have my own
personal issues with Nalcor. No secret. It has nothing to do with Nalcor or the
people working there; it has to do with a handful of people who fed us all a
bunch of lies. Anyway, that being as it may, it makes sense. The Muskrat Falls
Project now is winding down. We have Nalcor, we have Hydro, we have OilCo and we
have a core government department all looking after these assets. We don't need
it all. I absolutely support the notion of dealing with that and finding
efficiencies and saving money – absolutely.
Now, do I want to see people just tossed out onto the
street? Of course I don't. You have to recognize these are human beings with
families and so on. We can't just kick people to the curb. I would never support
that. But if it is done in a methodical way and we utilize attrition and early
retirement, or find positions for people in other core government departments so
that everybody is looked after as best we can – minimize any damage that way,
but still achieve that same goal of finding efficiencies and consolidating –
absolutely I'm going to support that, 100 per cent.
I could go down through other things – the school board
is another one. Again, I'd like to see how it is going to be done, how it is
going to be organized; understand the facts and the figures, which we don't
have. But if it can be done properly and still offering the same outcomes and
what the needs are in our education system – again, not kicking employees to the
curb; utilize attrition and early retirement and all that kind of stuff – I'm
going to support that as well. We can't afford not to do it. The reality of it
is we cannot afford not to do it. It has to be done.
I'll just finish off this particular time by saying in
the 2016 budget, I was bombarded with emails, phone calls – you name it – from
constituents. This time, guess how many calls and emails I got on this budget –
nada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
I
got the standard one from NAPE, I got the standard one from the NLTA and I got
all those from the Employers' Council, the same cut-and-paste emails. I got a
few there the last couple of days, a couple about MUN students, but beyond that
I got nothing really. I think maybe one or two people that have reached out to
me in some way.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll –
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The chuckles are starting already, before I even start.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
You're not done yet.
J.
HOGAN:
Yeah, we'll see. I made it this far last night.
I think it was the Member for Stephenville - Port au
Port said he likes using quotes. A quote came to my mind tonight before I
started speaking. It's déjà vu all over again here tonight.
It was nice last night, closer to the end of our
session, for everybody to have a bit of a chuckle. I don't know if everyone was
laughing at me or laughing with me. Either way, even if everyone was laughing at
me, I'll take one for the team if everyone left here on a happy note last night.
The sun was shining when we left. It was a good day in the House of Assembly
overall after a lot of debate, Mr. Chair.
I did hear a couple of comments from the hon. Member
for CBS last night; he was sort of shouting out some tips, I guess. I am still
fairly new. I'm going to rely on the newbie excuse for a little while longer
yet. I might not know all the rules of the House or the conventions of the
House. I don't know if the hon. Member for CBS was heckling me or trying to help
me.
B.
PETTEN:
Help you.
J.
HOGAN:
Trying to help me. There you go.
Anyone who is listening tonight, I think we proved a
point that Members of the House of Assembly can get along when necessary. Thank
you to the Member for CBS last night for trying to help me. I don't know if it
worked but he tried. He tried.
Mr. Chair, as I was saying last night, I did want to
talk a little bit about the Department of Justice and Public Safety. It is two
branches the way I see it and what I've come to learn since my time in the
department. Justice and access to justice is very important to me and to
everyone in the department who works so hard.
I do want to thank everyone. Just broadly speaking I
want to talk about how I think it reflects what the public thinks is the justice
system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's our two branches of courts:
the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, where there are courts
throughout this province; and the provincial court as well, where we have
courts, again, throughout the entire province. There are staff, judges and
clerks in all the offices throughout the province who work very, very hard to
service all the people and all the litigants that come through the court system
in this province.
It's a very difficult job, Mr. Chair, and I learned
that first-hand. I was very lucky and very fortunate, during my time as a
private practicing lawyer in this province, to see first-hand those great staff
that deal with all the issues that come before them. Obviously, we've talked a
lot about COVID and how difficult it has been on all aspects of our lives. It
did have a big impact on access to justice in this province and around the
world.
I was a practicing lawyer when COVID hit. I'd say what
people might refer to as small-firm lawyer's bread and butter would be real
estate files, real estate transactions and wills. Anyone in here who has done a
will or done a real estate file, anyone who owns a house I'm sure has done a
real estate file. You do know that you have to meet with your lawyer, Mr. Chair,
to sign the documents. You might not understand what the lawyer is saying,
telling you all the risks about buying a house and the obligations of your
mortgage and debts, et cetera, but you do have to meet the lawyer in person to
sign it and have to witness it.
Obviously, when COVID hit in March, that wasn't
possible anymore. So it was a real concern and it was a real worry for the
lawyers who had to do the work, and for all the people who all of a sudden
thought maybe I'm not going to be able to buy my house, I'm not going to be able
to get my mortgage. Or even maybe more importantly, I'm not going to be able to
sign my will and meet with my lawyer, which is obviously a very important thing
for someone who's nearing the end of life and need that document. It's important
to them, it's important to protect their family.
But we were lucky enough that the Department of Justice
and the great staff here – and everyone in the House of Assembly – passed
emergency legislation that allowed lawyers to meet with people not face to face.
I can tell you that an industry that's probably as old as time, lawyers, it was
a bit strange to get used to it. We were signing documents through video chat,
we were doing it online, but it did work well and it's probably the way of the
future.
Obviously, this is not the only industry that has had
to face something like that, but we did adapt. I think all the lawyers in this
province would thank the Department of Justice for that to ease access to
justice, and thank all the Members of the House of Assembly – whoever was here
at that point in time, because I think you weren't allowed to sit with a full
House – who passed that emergency legislation.
It does show the power of this House of Assembly, that
when push comes to shove, things can get done. I know the Member for Ferryland –
I think it was today or yesterday – said, let's get going. I think we can get
going when things need to be done. I think what this budget does show – and I
know I'm here to talk about the budget today – is that the time has come for us
to get going. Thankfully, everyone, at least, in Mount Pearl see it that way and
see that this government is getting going. They obviously agree with the budget
and that's good to hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
HOGAN:
I'm
sure it's not only people in Mount Pearl that see what a fantastic budget the
Minister of Finance put together. As the Leader of the Opposition did say
earlier tonight, Members opposite might have some issues with it, but overall I
think people are satisfied that it is a budget that's going to move us forward.
There might be some issues here and there, and we can talk about and continue to
debate over the next few years, but I think it is a strong budget. It does show
a strong government willing to move forward and make changes.
Mr. Chair, some other groups I just want to say thank
you to in the justice community include the Legal Aid lawyers. Hopefully,
everyone in this House hasn't had to use a Legal Aid lawyer. I say that because
people that need Legal Aid lawyers are those who don't have the financial
ability to pay for their own lawyers.
Mr. Chair, I did speak to the executive director of the
Legal Aid Commission in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has a concern that's
probably everlasting for him. People view Legal Aid lawyers, for some reason –
maybe because they're not paying out of their own pocket – as lesser lawyers.
That's certainly not the case. These lawyers work day in, day out. They're
public servants and they do a great job. They've gone to the same law schools
that all private practice lawyers and big firm lawyers went to and they're as
learned in the law as anyone, certainly, that I know and that I've come across.
I think it was this week in the House I made mention of
a lawyer by the name of Derek Hogan, who was admitted to the American College of
Trial Lawyers, and he's a legal aid lawyer, Mr. Chair. That's a very prestigious
recognition and a very high distinction. For a legal aid lawyer to get it, I
think what it does demonstrate is that these lawyers are there, as good as
anyone else. If someone is in trouble and doesn't have the financial ability
that's what the Legal Aid Commission is there for. I want to commend all of them
for their hard work. I'm sure during the COVID pandemic – they deal mostly, Mr.
Chair, with family law files and criminal files, and that's not easy to do when
there's no pandemic going on, and to have to deal with all that during these
difficult times, I commend all of them for their hard work and effort and to
stick with it.
Another group that I want to say thanks to is the
people that work at the Human Rights Commission. I guess, fortunately or
unfortunately, we do have a Human Rights Commission. It's unfortunate that we do
need this group in this province because there are human rights violations that
I'm sure a lot of us don't see, but unfortunately we do know about and it
happens every day. Fortunately, we do have this Human Rights Commission because
we recognize that there are human rights in this country and they're important
to all of us and they have to be respected.
If there is a violation of someone's human rights based
on their race, religion or sexual orientation, all these things that aren't
choices – this is who people are and everyone deserves to be treated equally –
and if there is an issue with regard to a human rights violation, that's what
the Human Rights Commission is there for: to deal with them and to sanction
people appropriately who don't view human rights the way they should be viewed.
I want to thank everyone who works at the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Chair,
because they do very, very important work.
I also want to talk a little bit about the Public
Safety part of my portfolio. When you think of public safety, obviously, it's
something that you know in the background there are always people out there
working very hard for us to keep us safe, but hopefully you don't ever have to
hear the stories, because if you hear the stories, it usually means it's a bad
news story. It's great that we know they're there; it's great if we don't hear
any stories about them because it means they're doing their job and they're
doing it well. Unfortunately, things do happen. Thankfully, we do have two
strong police groups in this province, Mr. Chair. We have the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary, who do a fantastic job, and we have the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, who also work very hard throughout all areas of this province, and we're
very lucky to have them.
One final group with regard to the Public Safety I'd
like to thank are the firefighters. Being from St. John's my whole life, living
around the corner from a fire department, I always thought everyone had their
own fire department in their town or in their city, and clearly that's not the
case. All the rural MHAs are probably looking at me now and shaking their heads.
I have come to learn that volunteer firefighters are truly very, very important
to the fabric of these communities and the safety of these communities.
I do want to thank each and every one of them for
putting in the hard work and taking the time – time they could spend on doing
other things, but they see the value in their community. They see how important
these things are and they know someone has to do this very difficult job and
they step up and do it. I want to thank each and every one of the individuals
who see fit and see it necessary and are happy to do it on behalf of their
community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
HOGAN:
Mr.
Chair, with that, coupled with the few minutes speaking last night, I think I
have reached the end of my moment in the sun. So I appreciate speaking to this
bill, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will start off by echoing (inaudible) just did say
and that is the lawyers at Legal Aid are some of the finest and they are well
trained and some of them have gone on to be appointed judges in the system.
I guess it's a key point, too, to keep in mind that our
public servants do a very good job, an excellent job under the restraints they
have.
I was trying to figure out how I was going to frame
what I wanted to say at this point, and my colleague from Mount Pearl -
Southlands gave me the overarching theme about how when it came to the budget,
if I heard him correctly, that he didn't hear from most people. He heard from,
yes, the unions, the Employers' Council, you name it. I would argue, yes, we
might, indeed, get it from the organization because the organizations – and when
I was the president of the Teachers' Association, we had the opportunity to see
and look at how the budget could potentially impact teachers. We would hear from
teachers. It was our job to make sure that the issues that we were hearing were
heard. Why do up a form letter? Because I can guarantee you that most people
working at their jobs, by the time they are finished, they are pretty beat
anyway. Their energies are directed just in front of them.
But why else didn't we hear from people? I'd say, for
the most part, people are just too busy with life at this point in time, and not
just because it is COVID-19. There are people who are – like when it comes to
the taxes, they have the money; they're going to be comfortable. They'll deal
with it.
There are those who are so vulnerable – part of our
vulnerable population – you're not going to hear from them. They don't vote, a
lot of them. Why? Because they probably feel they have nothing for which to
vote. It's a pointless exercise. I don't know how many times I hear it – from
more than one person knocking at the door: You're all crooks. All politicians
are crooks. Didn't know me from Adam; nevertheless, I was now in to that. That
was the first time I ran.
I look at the people who I've helped serve lunches to
at the Ches Penney Centre of Hope. I can tell, you they're worried about where
their next meal is coming from. Can they make it from there up to The Gathering
Place?
The people who are out in street corners are probably
looking for enough money either to take care of their habit or their next food.
You don't know. They're struggling; they're vulnerable.
One of the things in the Estimates Committee meeting
and this budget and in the Budget Speech we hear – listen to this: Balanced
budget legislation to tighten controls of the public purse ensuring our
government spends within its means. We have zero-based budgeting – a term I was
introduced to when I was first elected – attrition, vacancies.
Here is the thing: I was trying to figure out why you
need balanced budget legislation if you have zero-based budgeting. Seriously.
If, as I understood from zero-based budgeting, it's about building up from what
you need, we already should be trying to achieve balanced budget because we are
only focusing on what we need. What do any of these terms mean to the person on
the street – balanced budget legislation? No one knows until it affects them.
I don't know how many times things are changed with the
Teachers' Association and the teachers would ask: Where did this come from? Oh,
we voted on that last year. Here's what this is all about.
For the person who is struggling to survive, balanced
budget legislation, reducing the debt by $10 million, what does that mean? Those
are some of the questions that we've asked here in the House.
The Budget Speech talked about “solutions are needed to
address long-standing structural issues such as the high cost of providing
services to nearly 600 communities across a large” geographic area. What does
that mean? I would say that many of us here would probably have a hard time
talking about what are the structural issues. To the average person on the
street, what does “structural issues” mean? Does this mean we're going to shut
down communities? Does this mean that it's going to cost higher ferry fees to
get there? Because in another part of the budget it talks about: “… joint
solutions for a more effective way to maintain and improve the delivery of ferry
service, taking into consideration the perspectives of the people who use it.”
What does that mean?
Now, every profession has its jargon. Education does,
too. We can talk in jargon to the point where I can tell you what it does: it
excludes people from the conversation. All you have to do is read a will or any
legal document and you'll see that in just trying to figure that out, it will
boggle the mind.
So, yes, we're not necessarily going to hear from a lot
of people, because think about it, that's the speech. I have the Estimates book
there that we sit down and go through, and think about the amount of labour that
goes into going through Estimates here. If we're expecting the ordinary
individual, the person on the street, to go through this and then expect a phone
call – I'm waiting for the day when someone calls me and says: I've gone through
the Budget Speech, the budget documents and the book
The Economy and I'd like to ask a few
questions. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. But –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
What's your number?
J.
DINN:
You
know my number; call me. I'll expect questions tomorrow. I'll pass you on to
someone who knows what they're talking about.
The point, regardless of this, is that it's going to
affect the lives of many people.
We talk about poverty reduction and there are things to
be commended in this budget. I look at the money that's being put into housing,
the Rent Supplement Program and the low-income homeowner modifications, but in
the end we still have some issues. There are people who are just trying to
survive.
We've asked for here a $15 minimum wage. We've asked
for a guaranteed basic income pilot project, which was unanimously passed by
this House with some modifications. We've got to do more because I can tell you
that the people in my district are not going to benefit – not all. A lot of
people in my district are not going to see the benefit of a 20-cent
sugar-sweetened tax. It's not going to make the carton of milk any more
affordable. I applaud the $1 million towards Kids Eat Smart, but in the end it's
like the organizations I have been a part of, like St. Vincent de Paul, it's a
charity and it's not going to solve the issue for them.
A three-cent increase per cigarette. Those who can
afford it are going to pay it; those who can't – and I can think of several –
they're already getting the contraband cigarettes. Why? It's not going to solve
the underlying problem because a lot of the people I've dealt with they're
dealing with an enormous amount – sometimes that cigarette is the only thing
getting them through the day. I can afford to go up to the river and go fishing
or whatever else, I have other outlets, but for some people this is what's
getting them through the day.
Go down to a kitchen sometime and you'll see them, five
or six packs of sugar in a coffee and I'm amazed by it. I don't use sugar
anymore. But at the same time, why? It's that boost that's getting them through
the day. So sometimes we've got to bring ourselves down to the level of the
people – believe it or not – who are not tuning into the House of Assembly
broadcast. They probably don't know what a budget is, a main motion, Estimates
or anything is about.
I'm glad we have a few more money bills to talk about
and I'll bring up other issues. Not tonight. I'm going to parse out my wisdom
over the next few days, such as it is. I think, if nothing else, we take away
from the fact, at the end of it, this budget, despite its language, is going to
have a very real effect on some very vulnerable people and we've got to take
that into consideration. Just because they don't call in, doesn't mean they
don't care.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber -
Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to have a few words here tonight also. As my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands mentioned, we voted for the budget and,
as we said, there are not a lot of details in the budget and we will hold
government accountable to follow up on their commitments that they made within
the budget.
Before I get into that, Mr. Chair, I just want to
recognize the Town of McIvers, and it's a town out in the Bay of Islands, the
second-farthest town out on the North Shore. Today is their 50th anniversary of
being incorporated and I just have to recognize all the volunteers, the town
council, the fire departments, the church groups, the recreation groups and the
many other groups in the Town of McIvers that made that town so special and to
become so prosperous. It's a great town. They had Chase the Ace and they raised
almost a million dollars for water improvements in the town.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E.
JOYCE:
One
of the people I dealt with on a regular basis in the town was the mayor for many
years and on the council, a person by the name of Warren Blanchard, and he was
also on the North Shore development association for a number of years. Warren
was a tireless worker for the town and for the whole North Shore. He put a lot
of time, energy and effort into making sure that his town is prosperous, and so
did all the other councillors, but as the mayor you usually deal with the mayor
in the town. Bernice was there for a number of years also. I just have to
recognize the work of Warren, the council and all the volunteers in the town
that made McIvers such a great town. A very prosperous town, a very tidy town
and a lot of great homes are after being built there recently. Water and sewer
is after being improved.
So, Mr. Chair, to the town's current mayor, council and
all the groups, congratulations on 50 years of being incorporated. To all of
them, great working with you. Sometimes we had discussions on how to get things
moving forward. We didn't agree on how we should get it forward, but we always
found a way to get it forward to the Town of McIvers.
Mr. Chair, I'm just going to have a few more words. I
mentioned earlier in one of the speeches that I had and we'll just wait for the
next budget just to see – and I'll give you a good example. As I mentioned
earlier, there are 16 Cabinet ministers, 16 people in the Cabinet now. Extremely
large. I just want to look back in 2016, and it was brought up a couple of times
here today, when we decreased the size of the Cabinet and had a much, much
smaller Cabinet. I'll just give you an example. I'm saying to government now,
for me, personally, you're on notice that I will be watching, I will be
noticing. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because there's not a lot of
information in the budget to vote against it. But to give you the benefit of the
doubt.
Just to give you an example. The Department of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs now, just that alone, right now the Building
Canada Fund is out of it, engineering is out of it and the MMSB is not in there.
It's a much smaller department. I look at Women and Gender Equality also, that
was always a division in another part. Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs,
again, I'm not saying they're not important departments, but that was put
together after the fiasco with Dwight Ball and not getting the capping done in –
so that was all put in there, but it was always a division before. So when you
start splitting off divisions and making more Cabinet positions and then you
turn around and say: Everybody else, you have to tighten your belts, but we
don't have to because politically we need to spread it out a bit, carve a bit
off here and put it in here. When you look at some of the larger departments –
Health, Education, Transportation and Infrastructure and Justice, some of the
larger departments, the amount of people that they have there.
I'm not saying the department shouldn't be standing
alone; I'm just saying when you increase the Cabinet and you shave bits and
pieces off here and there so you can say we have this part done, we have that
gender equity done, we have the geography done and we have the representation
across the province done and then you're asking the people of this province to
tighten their belts, it's a tough one. It's definitely a tough one. I'm not
justifying or saying that these departments shouldn't stand alone, there was
never a justification; I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but I'm just
explaining what I'm hearing out there in the general public. I've seen it here
before. That is an issue that I will keep government accountable for.
Mr. Chair, when you look at the budget and you look at
some of the possibilities – as we mentioned, the school boards. Now, we're going
to bring the school boards into core government. We don't know how much we're
going to save by bringing the school boards in and we don't know what the
services are going to be like. I'm sure if there was an analysis done already,
it should be presented in this House of Assembly. I don't know if there was. If
there was, it should have been presented in this House of Assembly so we can
evaluate it. This is the first step of saying believe me. There are other parts
to it; other decisions that were made where they were saying believe me. Mr.
Chair, I know I'm speaking for myself: We'll believe you this year.
I have no problem if we're going to make the tough
decisions. I heard the Leader of the Opposition state it today and I know my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands said that everybody that's here is
willing to help out – everybody. I can tell you, I know the people associate me
with the Liberals and some people get upset if I go against this or that, but
all my discussions over here with the Opposition and also with the independents
– everybody is willing to chip in. Don't be afraid to ask and give ideas. Don't
be afraid. I've yet to hear on this side something saying we will not try to
help government – I haven't heard it.
I'll go back to a good example, Mr. Chair. I'll look at
the Kruger mill. There's one person in this House that him and me were worse
than cats and dogs: Jerome Kennedy. We had some good come-tos in this House. We
did. We always met behind that screen and worked it out though – we always did.
I remember the Kruger mill and the pension plan. Jerome
Kennedy came across the floor and asked me to help out because I had a good
rapport with all the unions. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, Jerome Kennedy at the
time gave me a lot of personal information and he had my commitment that I would
work with him on it. I know we asked the question, the status, we walked over
and gave him the questions and said, look, here's what we're going to ask.
Thanks, not a problem. I remember a minister said something in Corner Brook,
which was different from what Jerome Kennedy and me were working on. Jerome
Kennedy walked down to that person and he chewed that person out.
We did get the pension straightened up. My point to the
story is don't be afraid to reach out to people that have expertise on this
side. There are people – and I'm a prime example of it; I did it on several
occasions when I was in Opposition – here with expertise in different parts.
Don't be scared. Don't think that it's a sign of weakness if you have to reach
out to someone over here who may have a bit more expertise in a field. Be
trustworthy on it.
I know when I was in Opposition there were many times
that I sat down – and another one was Tom Marshall. The reason why I'm saying
this is the collaboration you can see is just not there. I'll use Tom Marshall
and we'll go to the hospital in Corner Brook. Tom Marshall, to this credit, was
in with the government and they weren't going to do the radiation. Tom Marshall
took over as premier. I used to go behind the screen and ask questions in the
House of Assembly – Dwight Ball and myself, I give him credit also – and then
we'd be shot down. We called Tom Marshall behind the scenes and said here are
the facts.
This day when I asked a question in the House of
Assembly, Tom Marshall said whatever the answer was to a question. I called him
aside. I gave Tom Marshall two names. It was a director of radiation in PEI and
a director of radiation in Cape Breton. Tom Marshall, as premier of this
province, on a Saturday and a Sunday morning phoned those two people and asked
those two people can a radiation unit work? They said, yes, Mr. Premier. They
were shocked, first of all. Tom Marshall came back and put $500,000 in the
budget for a study for radiation in Corner Brook. That's how collaboration can
work.
I see my time – I'll be back again, but that's my
point, how collaboration can work. I'm sure there are people on this side of the
House who are willing to collaborate to make this province even better.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wasn't expecting that. I thought you were going back
there, so no problem.
There are so many subjects from listening to people do
all their speaking on their districts and remind you of some stuff in your own
district. Yesterday, with the Terra Nova news, I had a lot of people in my
district that were certainly affected. I wanted to be able to go on record and
speak on that as well, because I didn't get an opportunity yesterday in the
three hours we had here on debate. I have a lot of constituents that are
affected by that. There are some constituents that are rotational workers now
and others that are laid off.
I'll use the example of the marine base in Bay Bulls,
as a spinoff, I'm going to call it, from the Terra Nova FPSO. I don't know if
they got work from that, but I know that I have a relative that works down
there, my brother. They're not as busy as they were two years ago. Exactly in
the oil industry – I don't know as much as my Member for Terra Nova about it,
for sure; he's pretty adept on it. You do notice that chain coming to the wharf
and piping and all kinds of stuff. The seismic vessel was in Bay Bulls only last
week, so it does affect the area and the people that are there.
They're down on work. They're still working a couple of
times a week or once every couple of weeks. If there are ships in, they're there
for however long the ship is in, but it certainly does affect. That's just in
Bay Bulls. There's another proposed marine terminal in Fermeuse and all the
other people that are tied to this unit and the spinoffs. It's very important
that hopefully we can get this back on track and get that working. I certainly
support those workers and would love to see that come back. Certainly, in our
town as well, it's very important for the town.
Another opinion on that, I'm going to say, we're
talking about going green. I don't think oil is going away. That's my opinion.
We look at all the vehicles that we have here now. Yes, they're going electric,
but that's not going to happen in the next five to 10 years. So we still have to
keep plugging away, drive this industry more.
Just think about all the little things that people
think about. What are you going to do with lawn mowers, Whippersnippers and
ATVs? I only saw it on the news probably a month ago or two months ago talking
about electric airplanes. Now, technology is not there yet, and do you trust
that? You're talking about airplanes and jet propulsion and all that. It's a
long ways away.
We really have to push it, I think. It's more than 50
years away. We'll be gone and our kids and our grandkids will still be with oil,
as far as I'm concerned. Now, do we have to change and look at other things? For
sure. Absolutely, we have to go green. We made a step for sure when we talk
about Muskrat Falls, but it is a step that eventually is going to payoff. Right
now it doesn't look that way, but I think it really will.
That's the same question I asked when they did
consultations at the hotel when they were doing some stuff. I spoke to one of
the ministers at the time and said to him: In 30 or 40 years, will this be good?
Yes, this will be a great project at that point in time. Same as when we get
back Churchill Falls. Let's keep going on our oil and gas.
The one thing I would say – when it all happened
yesterday, it came down pretty quick when we were all going in the House and not
getting a chance – well, we got a chance to go out on the step but not to get
there to represent our constituents and all the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. If this happened in Quebec, I just wonder how it would turn out. That
would be my only statement on that. Alberta, they lost their pipeline. You just
have to wonder how this would all turn out for us if it was – based on
equalization, if this was happening in Quebec I just wonder how this would turn
out. That would just be my comment on that and I won't dig any deeper into it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
I
did see in the budget – and I'll touch on a couple of budget things. To the
minister that was speaking earlier there, the Justice Minister, when you got up
to speak. When I first got here, it was 20 minutes, and I said: How am I going
to speak for 20 minutes? How is that going to happen? I remember getting up
speaking; I was 11 minutes in, and I finished in 11 minutes. Now, I have notes
here and I don't know if I will get it in for every budget item that's here that
you're going to get to speak on. It is funny how things change and you sit down
and you listen to what happens.
Also, speaking with our colleague from Bonavista, I
said I'll probably touch on it a little bit. He was talking about seals, the
fishery and the budget. When I was young, I will say – I'm not very old but when
I was young, you'd never see a seal on your beach way. When you go to Chance
Cove park right now, you go down to park, you go down to the beach you see seals
out bobbing around.
Where else was I to? I was up in Trepassey. There was a
post today in Witless Bay; there was a seal up on the beach. That never happened
when we were young; you never saw a seal. If you did, they didn't live to get
back in the water most times because somebody got them. That's just the way it
was. If there was an opportunity there for somebody to have some seal on their
own, then they went and done it. With the regulations today, you wouldn't get
away with it but that happened.
With the budget, speaking on the fishery and the seals,
as the Member for Bonavista has said – when I was young, I wasn't a fisherman by
no stretch of the imagination; my dad was and so many people in the community.
You stand up on what we call the cliff and they come up over the hill – and I
was only 16; I fished for a couple of years with him and never got paid. I was
out fishing but not paid. You come up on the hill and the fishermen would gather
there on the side of the road, foot up on the guardrail and they'd be talking
about no fish today. Next week, there would be all kinds of fish.
I always thought after the fishery closed – and that
happened, and I said that before, closed on my birthday on July 2, '92. It was a
pretty big devastation. Talking about those seals, we really have to get to that
point to be able to cultivate them and make that market something that's viable
around here.
To get back to the fishing story – I can remember a
time we went out fishing on a Saturday. Anyone who is from rural Newfoundland
would know when you go out fishing, on Saturday evenings, the fish plants would
only take 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of fish. You had to go out and haul a trap that
would be full and you'd take in 7,000 or 8,000 you knew they were going to take
it; they were not going to throw it away. At the time in the community I was in
– every community had a fish plant along the Southern Shore.
When we take in the fish on Saturday evening, you'd
take so much and you'd go out on Monday morning after a trap had been full – I
remember we went out and we hauled a trap that was full, more than 30,000 pounds
of fish and the boat couldn't take it. They'd bag it up and they'd go out again
that evening and take some more out of it to bring it on a Saturday. They let it
all go and, on Monday morning, you'd go out to go haul the trap, there wasn't a
fish to be seen. They'd cook fish stew every morning and they had to go to
another boat to get a fish to have a fish stew. That's how it changed.
I really think, again going back to it, that the
foreign countries coming in here taking our fish and not being accountable for
it and we're letting it happen, that's a big issue. I agree with the minister;
it's something that we should make a stand on. I know that they did years ago,
but they're still there fishing, in my mind. It's something that should be
looked at.
Again, in our budget, there wasn't a whole lot
mentioned. That was one of the things that when somebody spoke on it I said:
Well, I'd like to touch on it. I mean, when I was young, Portuguese boats would
come into Bay Bulls and tie up on the wharf and take all the salt fish that we
processed in the plant. That's what happened. That's only 35, 40 years ago. It's
something that happened on a regular basis and there was a good market for it at
the time. Those boats, they didn't just fish offshore; they came right into the
wharf and we supplied them with the fish.
With that being said, I really think that's something
we should look at as a government and push for. I'm not here to cut up any
ministers in no way, shape or form, but that's something that I really think we
should have a hard look at.
Again, with the opening of the tourism coming up now in
June – I think it's June 23 when it starts to open. I'm glad to see that in the
whole district from Petty Harbour right up to St. Shott's. It's a big district.
Tourism is very big, boat tours, Colony of Avalon opened this week. Mistaken
Point is going to be open. The Trepassey hotel, all the Airbnbs that are there.
All the little places that they can stay, bed and breakfasts. It's very
important. It's a big industry in the District of Ferryland, and it's very
encouraging to see that come open and hopefully we can get back to normal.
I will touch on the Minister of Justice saying that,
you know, the Legal Aid lawyers – my daughter just graduated from Leicester, so
she's going to be a Legal Aid lawyer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
I'm
a bit of a softy, so I'm trying to get it out. I think it's the third time I
thought about it and I couldn't get it out.
Yeah, so she graduated this week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
It's a pretty proud moment.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister Responsible
for Women and Gender Equality.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's always an honour. I won't take the full 10 minutes
tonight, but I'd be remiss today if I didn't talk about some important events
that have happened and that I want to bring to attention to.
In particular, we heard in the news, of course, about
the Pride flags being stolen from schools; those are public properties. Of
course, education institutions for our young people, our most valued resource in
this province, and we saw those flags stolen, trampled on and burned. I want to
recognize that and I want to, of course, give my sympathies. But that said, I
also want to call it out, Mr. Chair, because if we don't call out bad behaviour
when we see it or when we hear it, in my opinion, it's the same as endorsing it.
I also want to commend the hon. Member for Ferryland.
He's a gentleman and he always talks with class when he speaks in this House of
Assembly, and there are many people in this House of Assembly who use class when
they speak. That's important because we're all here and we're all speaking on
behalf of the people who we represent and who elect us to be here in these 40
seats. Again, just look around the House of Assembly and how many are occupied
by women, Mr. Chair, we are very well in the minority.
We are discussing the budget and, of course, money
bills and the finances pertaining to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's important
to take criticism and to debate because that's what it's all about. But, Mr.
Chair, what I say, I respect good, respectful debate. That's what counts, that's
what people hear and that's what is credible, in my opinion.
At this time I do want to say, again, I am disheartened
and disappointed to hear an hon. Member stand in this House tonight – one thing,
criticizing a size of a Cabinet is just, and that's fine to do. But the Member
who criticized the size of this Cabinet, the increase in the size of the
Cabinet, I want to first of all draw your attention; there are more women in
this Cabinet. There's an increase in women around that table, at the Cabinet
table, from three to five.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
PARSONS:
We
all know there are not a lot of women in this hon. House and we always ask why
we don't get more women in politics. Well, I would say, Mr. Chair, and I would
ask all Members, and I challenge you all to ask yourself, do you think it's
because we hear criticisms that are geared and targeted at women?
The hon. Member for Humber - Bay of Islands just spoke
and criticized the size of Cabinet, which is fine and which is just, but I
noticed he didn't criticize the Minister for Transportation and Infrastructure,
he didn't criticize the Minister for Justice and Public Safety, but instead he
criticized three portfolios, Mr. Chair. He criticized the Minister of Municipal
and Provincial Affairs, the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon. Member on a point of order.
E.
JOYCE:
At
no time, Mr. Chair –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Standing Order, please.
E.
JOYCE:
Pardon me?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Standing Order.
E.
JOYCE:
Forty-nine.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E.
JOYCE:
Who
said that?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I ask the Member to come on with his point of order.
E.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Chair, at no time did I criticize; what I was talking about was the size of the
departments. My point was, Mr. Chair, at no time did I criticize, I even said
I'm not even criticizing the need but could you add something to it because of
the size of the Cabinet to make the Cabinet smaller in these lean times. So get
it straight what I said.
CHAIR:
There is no point of order, just an honourable disagreement between the Members.
Thank you.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, it is fair to criticize and to ask questions
because that is the process, that's the beauty of democracy that we have and
that we get to live privileges daily in this country and in this province, Mr.
Chair. But I am sorry, I just find it hard – it is just very disheartening and
sickening to see – fine, criticize the size of the Cabinet but don't just pick
on the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and talk about how it is
diminished and its importance is diminished and how there is a woman minister. A
women I am very proud of, Mr. Chair, my colleague, the first female mayor, I
might add, of St. Anthony.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
PARSONS:
Also, myself, I am very honoured and privileged to be the Minister Responsible
for Women and Gender Equality, which is a standalone portfolio which this
Premier saw fit to create. Is anyone in disagreement that the issues facing
women, the 2SLGBTQIA+ and marginalized groups don't need more support than what
they have? Is anyone disagreeing with that?
Of course, the minister and the Department for
Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, we just saw the reports come from the
leader of our country about the supports that are needed and the results and the
call for action for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I just want
to draw that point, if you will. No male ministers or departments were
criticized, yet the three that are held very important portfolios that were held
by women were criticized.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, being the Minister Responsible
for Women and Gender Equality I cannot stand by and just accept this kind of
debate. Be professional, bring the facts and have class. We should all have
class, Mr. Chair.
I didn't plan on speaking tonight, but I'm no better if
I just stand by and say nothing. If this is an hon. House, I ask that we all
keep in mind that we are here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Let's keep our debates professional and classy and with the facts.
That's it for me right now, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not going to get into any debate with the minister,
but if you look at my speech in totality I did mention the size of the Cabinet
of Transportation and Infrastructure, the size of his department. I mentioned
Education. I mentioned Justice. My whole point was that in a government in lean
times, if you're going to expand your Cabinet, carve off places to make extra
Cabinet positions and ask people in this province to tighten their belts, the
government should show some kind of leadership. That was my point.
Did I ever question any of her ability? I seen the
Minister Responsible for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs handle two departments
at once – two departments. Mr. Chair, at no time did I question anybody's
ability or their gender. I'm just talking about what departments and the size of
certain departments compared to other departments, Mr. Chair.
If I can't stand in this House and happen to point out
that there are departments in some fields, I'm only doing it, I pointed out six
or seven and someone says, well, there are three here that are women ministers.
Well, I guess I'm not allowed to speak in this House of Assembly. If anybody out
there ever thinks that it's just me who is thinking that this Cabinet up to 16
is large. Why there is some with just – I use Transportation and Infrastructure,
I always said it's too big of a division. Education is another one. I always
said that. It's just so huge.
If I can't point out the smaller departments, Mr.
Chair; I never mentioned the Minister of Service NL because she has a large
department. I'm just talking about government in general. If people wants to
take that personal that's not my problem, but there is no time when it's a
reflection on those departments.
I've seen on many occasions, Mr. Chair, during lean
times that there were departments, Mr. Chair, that had two and three different
portfolios that are here now.
I
If you want to stand up now and criticize me for
bringing something up, and this is the budget time to bring it up, and say to
the Premier: If you want to show restraint, make a smaller Cabinet. But if
people want to think that I'm just going to back down because I point out a few
Cabinet sizes and how it increased so much, Mr. Chair, they're not going to keep
me quiet; not going to happen.
If I'm here as an independent and you think that I'm
not allowed to speak – and I just want to say to the minister for the Status of
Women: You think that I'm to the point where I'm pointing at women. I ask the
Minister of Service NL: Do I give you the questions beforehand in this House? I
do. I don't try to embarrass anybody. I did it to the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board. Do I give you the questions beforehand? I do. The
reason why, Mr. Chair, is I want answers. I'm not trying to embarrass anybody. I
want results; I want answers. I don't know if there's a minister over there that
I never gave the question to before, because I want an – the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I gave her the question.
This idea that I'm just out here now and the minister
for the Status of Women thinks she can stand up and say I'm signalling out
women. It's absolutely false. I know your personal vendetta against myself and
Dale, I know that, but let me tell you something: I will not back down. If I
have something to say in this House, I'm going to say it. I say to all my
colleagues in this House of Assembly, everybody in this House of Assembly, if I
have a concern about a budget, if I'm going to raise something about the budget,
I'm raising it.
I say to the Premier: If the budget is going to
increase in size and you're asking people to tighten their belts, which we're
going to have to do, which I'm going to be a part of and going to be asked to
do, it's fair for me to point that out because it is brought to my attention
across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Is it right? That's the Premier's decision; that's his
prerogative. But is it right for me not to point that out? Is it right that I
should sit down now and not point those things out? Mr. Chair, that is where,
all of a sudden, now you can't say anything, you have to hand back. I will not
do it, Mr. Chair. I will continue to speak as I always found and if I have to
raise concerns in this House of Assembly, I will raise concerns in this House of
Assembly. I will not and I refuse to – the concerns that are brought to me by
the constituents that I represent.
I'll just ask the minister for the Status of Women: I
was out to a function this weekend, a great function out in Corner Brook. My
family is Aboriginal and my wife's family is Aboriginal. What if I stood up in
this House today and said I was singled out and I was never, ever mentioned by
anybody? What if the Member for Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs was
sitting at a function and the Premier was there and wouldn't recognize her in
front of a bunch of Aboriginals? She's Aboriginal. Should I stand up and say:
Oh, I'm being prejudice because I'm Aboriginal, my family is Aboriginal? No, you
shouldn't be.
Any time you want to just go out and do that, then jump
up and say, oh, I'm Aboriginal and didn't recognize me because my family is
Aboriginal or my wife's family is Aboriginal, it's wrong. That's their right if
they want to recognize somebody or not. But you can't keep on, because someone
raises a point, think that it's so personal and try to get people to stop
talking about it. You just can't do that. Anyway, I'll come back to that later,
Mr. Chair.
I just want, again, to talk about the district of
Humber Arm South, as I did before. In the Town of Humber Arm South they have a
tourism plan, $10 million. Mr. Chair, a $10-million tourism plan that they have.
Hopefully, that's going to improve the whole South Shore of the Bay of Islands.
I have to recognize the mayor, Eric Bourgeois, town council and the federal
government for helping with the funding for that.
I know a lot of people here don't understand the
District of Humber - Bay of Islands; the largest point in Newfoundland and
Labrador is Lewis Hills. I should
say Newfoundland, not Labrador. Mr. Chair, Lewis Hills has this minimal on top.
It's part of the old Appalachian Trail, all along. It's a great tourism area,
Mr. Chair. It's a great potential that the people of Humber Arm South are
endeavoring on. I'm confident that we'll get the money from the federal
government, provincial government and the towns on the South Shore to help out
with this here, which will create employment.
Another thing that
they say that's going to be great for them is cellphone coverage, to get in the
backcountry. A lot of tourists won't go in the areas where if anything happens
they can't get hold to 911 or somebody to help them out. That's going to expand
a lot of tourism in the Humber - Bay of Islands area. I know in Lark Harbour,
York Harbour, I know the Minister of Environment was a part of it that got the
funding for that. That was a big boost for that area and for tourism and for
business opportunities also and for tourism opportunities in the area.
There are
improvements. There are definitely improvements. Again, our role as MHAs is to
try to work with the governments, work with the town councils to improve the
situation all throughout our districts. I don't think any of us here should be
criticized for that. I know we'll hear it from the government every now and then
that when you ask for something, you say: Well, you're saying cut the budget,
but you want this. That's normal. That's the political banter back and forth. I
have no problem with that whatsoever, Mr. Chair. I expect it and I understand
it. That's the banter coming back and forth. I have no problem with that.
But it's our role, all MHAs, not just on the Opposition
side or the independents or the Third Party, and also on the government, to
lobby government to help out their constituents that they were elected for, Mr.
Chair.
I see my time is short. I'll have another opportunity
to have another few words later.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had a couple of things I wanted to say, and then I'll
be done on this bill. I'll pick up on the next bill, I guess.
Anyway, first of all, Mr. Chair, I do want to say – and
I don't want to make any heads swell or anything. I meant to say it the last
time, actually. But I do want to commend the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I've listened to him since he's taken over in that role and I listened to him
today in his speech. The approach that he has taken is what was desperately
needed in the last session, I will say. I have to give credit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
And
he is a good speller.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Mr.
Chair, the other thing I just want to pick up on: When I spoke last time, I
referenced the fact, in the end, before I ran out of time – that's the
difficulty, of course, when you only have 10 minutes at a time – that I didn't
get a lot of calls. I got basically no calls other than I got a bunch of form
emails from special interest groups.
Now, that's not to diminish it. We have NAPE employees
who are obviously worried about their futures, worried about their jobs. I get
the – and by the way, I answered every single email. Now, maybe they're all
going back to Jerry Earle and the other ones were all going to Richard Alexander
and the other ones were all going to Dean Ingram. I don't know, but I answered
every single one of them. I understand that they have their concerns.
The Employers' Council obviously are saying we need to
grapple with our crippling debt and I do agree with him. But public employees,
whether they be teachers or other public employees, are concerned about their
well-being and that of their family and what their future will hold and I can't
knock them for that. I have a lot of public sector workers in my district. I
just want to make that point.
I would also say that I also understand that my
district, from a demographic point of view, is quite different from my colleague
in St. John's Centre. I get that. I don't have near the amount of low-income – I
don't know if I have any low-income housing. I have some co-op housing, a few
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but not very much. Most of my district is
middle-income, high middle-income working families, generally. I get that.
I also understand and I agree with him on the point
that the average citizen is busy with their lives and they're not going to go
and scrutinize the budget and read it from cover to cover and start calling and
asking questions. I get that as well. The point I was just trying to make is, as
an example, if there is anything that is totally egregious to the public,
something that is really a major concern, you're going to hear about it.
2016 budget comes to mine. My phone, my email, my
Facebook; I couldn't go to Sobeys or Dominion or anywhere in the community.
Coffee shop or Tim Hortons, you were hearing it everywhere. I can remember after
Bill 29. At that time, I was getting it with both barrels. I guess my point is
that if this budget was so egregious and people were so upset about it and so
concerned and so worried, I think I would have heard more feedback from
constituents up at Tim Hortons, up at Sobeys. I would have had a bunch of
emails, a few calls or whatever. I'm just saying I'm not hearing that in my
district. Maybe other Members are in their district; I'm not hearing it, not in
any major way.
Are there some people who are obviously concerned about
MUN and tuition fees? Absolutely. If you work for Nalcor, are you concerned
about your future? Of course you are. If you are working for the health care
corporation and you're in one of the back-office positions, are you concerned?
Of course you are. If you are an employee of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation, are you concerned? Of course you are. If you work at Motor
Registration, are you concerned? Of course you are. But we don't know at this
point in time how these things are going to be done, how they're going to pan
out, what decisions are going to be made and how they're going to be made.
As I said, when the time comes to deal with these
issues on an individual basis – because some of these things might not happen
this year or next. They might be two or three years out, some of these things,
and some of them may never happen. When the time comes – as my colleague from
Humber - Bay of Islands said – I'll be there. I'll be there, I'll ask questions
and I will challenge things, if necessary, and I'll support things, if
necessary.
In terms of this particular budget right now, this
particular document right now – and we can use MUN as an example. In the Budget
Speech you're talking about next year with tuition fees, and they're not going
up this year in this budget. It's not being cut. When we talk about concerns of
things that could come in the future, well, in the future I'll deal with them.
If there are things I agree with I'll support it, and if I don't, I won't. But
at this point in time, in this particular document, I think it's a reasonable
budget.
As a matter of fact, as I said the last time, there are
many people who I've spoken to who felt that the budget didn't go far enough.
They're not seeing – they said: Jesus, it's another year gone by that we're not
tackling the deficit. I've heard that from a lot of people, actually. More so
than people being concerned about what's in it. I've heard the other side, more
so. Because people realize, people understand the fiscal situation that we're
in. How can you not understand it?
We're going to be – it won't be tonight; I guess it
will be tomorrow, whatever – debating a bill to borrow another $1.7 billion on
top of the $15 billion or $16 billion, or whatever. I think it's probably closer
to $16 billion, I believe, that's our net debt now. We're going to borrow
another $1.7 billion. If we have to wait until 2025-2026 – I believe it is – to
get to a surplus, that means for the next two or three budgets we're going to be
adding on another billion-plus onto that debt. That's what's going to happen, I
would suspect.
The easiest thing to do is the status quo. The easiest
thing to do is the status quo. Leave everything alone, kick the can down the
road and bury your head in the sand. We can't do it. We can't do it anymore, Mr.
Chair. We have to have the courage, collectively, to make some changes. Credit
to all my colleagues. I think pretty much everyone has said that they're willing
to make some tough decisions. We'll see when the time comes. But they're saying
that they are, and I believe them, because we're all concerned.
Now, does that mean Newfoundland and Labrador is going
to sink? That there's nothing to look forward to and that we have no future? I
don't believe that. I don't believe it for a second. We look at what's happening
in Terra Nova. Very concerning, obviously. I'd love for it to be up and running
tomorrow. But do I believe that it's going to spell the end of our oil and gas
industry if it doesn't work out? I don't believe that. I don't. It's going to be
a kick in the teeth, obviously. It's going to be a major issue for those workers
who need a job now or who needed a job yesterday. But as far as the future – and
we have to look after those people. We absolutely have to make sure those people
are looked after.
But does it mean it's the end of our oil and gas? No.
No it doesn't. There is lots of opportunity here. But we need to get ourselves
out of the hole from where we're to. We really do. We need that to get to
balanced budgets, and once we get to a balanced budget we need that balanced
budget legislation. I'll be supporting that as well, because it makes sense.
We're paying more on the debt now than we're paying on education. That's where
we're at.
As far as this particular budget goes, I'll say again
for the final time – I said it numerous times and I'll say it again – I think
the budget is a good budget overall. Many people would argue it didn't go far
enough, but at least the signals are there that we're going to start moving in
the right direction as we move forward. As long as it's done in a fair,
reasonable manner that makes sense, and as long as government is open and
transparent with all the information – I'm not rubber-stamping it and just
trusting you on everything – all the information is available as to how the
decision is made, I will support it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I'm seeing no further speakers.
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 For 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 8)
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 through 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:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the Schedule in the bill be deleted and the
following substituted, and I have copies here for my hon. colleagues.
Mr. Chair, under Head of Expenditure the Head of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs should be moved. The numbers remain the same,
it's just – I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would love
to have $2 billion, I'm sure, added to her budget, but that will not happen
today. We are going by what the Estimates had indicated. There has just been an
unfortunate mishap in the listing under the Head of Expenditure and I'm happy to
table this Schedule that should be correct.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Order, please!
The House will recess just for a few minutes so we can
have a look at the amendment and make sure it's in order.
Thank you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Are
the House Leaders ready?
Thank you.
Order, please!
The amendment is in order.
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the Schedule, as amended, carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, the Schedule, as amended, 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 For 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 resolution and Bill 8 carried with amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that
the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $8,024,380,400 for the
2021-2022 fiscal year be carried. I further move that the Committee report that
they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the total combined in the Estimates in the amount of
$8,024,380,400 for the 2021-2022 fiscal year be carried and that the Committee
report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.
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 consequent thereto.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The
hon. Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair of Committees.
B.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of
$8,024,380,400 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2021-2022 fiscal
year and 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 Whole reports that the Committee have considered the
matter 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:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the amendments be now
read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the amendments 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:
First reading of the amendments.
On motion, amendments read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the amendments be now
read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the amendments 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:
Second reading of the amendments.
On motion, amendments read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now
read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the resolution now be 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:
“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 $4,565,934,100.”
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 Finance, that the
resolution be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that this 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:
“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 $4,565,934,100.”
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, for leave
to introduce a Supply Bill, Bill 8, as amended, and I further move that the said
bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon, the Minister of Finance shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act For 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, as amended, Bill 8, the Supply Bill and that the said bill be now read
a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister
of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supply Bill, Bill 8, as amended,
and the bill shall be read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the hon. Minister of Finance to introduce
a bill, “An Act For 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,” carried. (Bill 8)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act For 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 8)
On motion, Bill 8 read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the
Supply Bill, as amended, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the Supply Bill, as amended, be now 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 For 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 8)
On motion, Bill 8 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, that the
Supply bill, as amended, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the Supply bill, as amended, 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 For 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 8)
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 For 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 8)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper: Motion 5, Bill 17.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to
consider a certain resolution and a bill relating to the raising of loans by the
province, Bill 17.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 17.
Resolution
“Be it resolved
by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:
“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to
authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the
province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know the hour is late but today we are introducing
the loan bill, which accompanies the main Supply bill. Obviously, both bills are
debated at the completion of the main budget, which we did earlier this evening.
Budget 2021 was tabled in the House of
Assembly on May 31, 2021. It identified a borrowing requirement of $1.7 billion
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022. Now, that is comprised of loans
moving forward or carrying over as well as the new requirements of the $8.24
billion.
On April 29, 2021, $0.2 billion was borrowed under the
authority of the Loan Act, 2020 and
authority for the remaining $1.5 billion needs to be provided under the
Loan Act, 2021. Under the authority of
the Loan Act, 2021 and section 38 of
the Financial Administration Act, we
will raise by way of loans not exceeding the amount of $1.5 billion. The
Loan Act, 2021 will continue in full
force and effect until the $1.5 billion limit is reached or it is replaced by a
subsequent loan act.
The last loan act passed by the Legislature was the
Loan Act, 2020, which provided
long-term borrowing authority of up to $3 billion identified in
Budget 2020. As of March 31, 2021, the province borrowed $2.8
billion in long-term borrowings of the $3 billion.
The Financial
Administration Act authorizes new borrowings for the purpose of redeeming or
retiring debt, making sinking fund contributions or retiring unfunded pension
liabilities. The 2021 loan bill is required in order to provide specific
long-term borrowing authority to meet the 2021-2022 budgetary requirements.
Borrowing activity is necessary in order to allow the province to meet its
day-to-day financial commitments.
I thank Members of this House for their deliberations
around Budget 2021, their comments
have been noted and I look forward to the continuing debate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Next speaker?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's great to have another opportunity to speak to the
budget, I guess, or budget bills. Of course, this one here, Mr. Chair, I
referenced last time, although I believe I said $1.7 billion but I wasn't
correct, it is $1.5 billion. I was close.
This is going to allow us to borrow up to $1.5 billion.
Not saying the government will actually end up borrowing that amount in the end
but they can up to that amount. I would equate it to when you go to Costco or
something to get gas and it says authorized payment up to $150 worth of gas and
then you end up getting $80 and whatever and that's all you needed. It's the
same idea; much larger scale but the same concept I guess.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker – or, Mr. Chair, I
should say, we are in Committee – it's something that I think we all have to
continue to be mindful about. This is up to another $1.5 billion with a B, on
top of over, I believe, $16 billion in net debt, which we've already
accumulated. As I said, if that goes up to 2025 before we hit balance budget,
we're going to be close on $20 billion in the hole by the time we get a balanced
budget with that trend, if it continues.
Hopefully, there'll be some good news and a few
windfalls along the way that will help keep that number down as much as
possible, but the reality of it is, is that we're continuing to head in a
direction that we don't want to be heading in.
Again, that also reiterates the point that we all have
to be committed here in this Legislature for the next four years, assuming we
don't get another election before then. We all have to be committed, I believe,
to collaborating, co-operating and finding ways to reduce that deficit. As I've
said in the past, I will say again, I'm prepared to go down that road. I'm
prepared to go down that road if it's done fairly and it makes sense but –
here's a big but – I need the information. I need the information. Not like this
whole Terra Nova deal where we're expected to support a particular action or
particular position, we don't have the details.
Now, when it comes to this scenario, unlike the Terra
Nova deal, of course – the Terra Nova deal you're dealing with private business,
there's commercial sensitivity and so on. When we're talking about agencies,
boards, commissions and core government departments, the big difference is, I
would suggest, that everything we're talking about here is publicly owned
infrastructure, public programs all paid for by taxpayers' dollars.
There should be no reason to my mind – no reason
whatsoever – why when government goes down the road on reimagining and reshaping
government, absolutely no reason, no excuse not to share each and every detail
with Members on this side of the House. No reason. As long as you're prepared to
share all those details, all that information and truly collaborate, then as one
Member I'm willing to go down that road with you. I know I'm not alone, but I'm
just speaking for myself at this point in time. I'm willing to go down that
road.
But if the plan is that we're just going to sort of do
our thing in the Cabinet room behind closed doors and make all these decisions
and just come in here, in this House of Assembly, and say we need you to support
it because this is the right thing to do, this is what we've decided, then –
you'll still do it because you have a majority. That's the reality.
Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately, because the downside now of a majority
government – it was better before, as far as I'm concerned, with the minority.
At least you had to find at least one Member on this side that agreed with you.
If you couldn't find one Member that agreed with you, probably what you were
doing wasn't a good decision to begin with, if everybody disagreed with you.
Now, of course, in a majority situation you're going to
do what you want anyway, which is unfortunate. It's sad. Nonetheless, whether
you can do what you want or not, I'll die on the hill with you on certain
things, if necessary. I'm prepared to do it, to do what's right. But if you're
not going to share information, you're just going to come in here and just throw
stuff at us and say here's what we're doing, get on board – ain't happening. I
don't care. It's just not happening. It's not going to happen. I just say that
and I put that there just for the record.
Now, as this is a money bill, we can talk about
whatever we want. Something I haven't talked about for a while, but I said I was
going to keep bringing this up – and I am going to keep bringing it up – is the
recent provincial election. I want to bring that up again. I don't want us to
forget about it, I don't want it to get lost because what happened was wrong. I
don't care what anybody tells me. You can come up with any rationalization, any
excuse, whatever, it was wrong.
I won, so at the end of the day I could just simply say
nothing about it and say: Hey, it was great. I won handily. It was perfect; it
was all fair and square. I'm sitting here. We could all say that. There's
nothing for me to gain by bringing this up. Not a thing. Nothing for me to gain
and nothing for me to lose, other than the difference between what is right and
what is wrong.
Now, we all know – I could repeat all the things that
happened during the election. We could talk about the thousands of people who
did not get to vote, a lot of them who are seniors and people who voted their
entire lives, always voted, that were denied that opportunity. We can talk about
people who were special people that got to actually vote in person on the last
day; went down to Elections NL, apparently, and voted there in the parking lot.
How that could happen?
We can talk about certain people that were allowed to
vote over the telephone. We can talk about the phone lines that were down more
than they were up. We can talk about the computer system that crashed I don't
know how many times, including the deadline for voting online and people who
didn't get to vote because of that. We can talk about the more special people
that actually had the Chief Electoral Officer hand-delivering ballots to their
house. Can you imagine?
We can talk about the scrutineering process. Anyone who
has been involved with an election before, you get to scrutinize every single
ballot. I was given the option: Okay, you can go online and we'll show you. I go
online and I can see a table. I can see a bunch of people off in the distance
doing something. They could have been having a game of Rummoli for all I know. I
don't know what they were doing. A bunch of people sat around a table; you're
getting to scrutinize.
Then, at the end, they said: Well, these are the
rejected ballots that we determined are rejected. Any objections? What about the
ones that you determined shouldn't be rejected? Should I be able to see those?
How do I know you counted them right? Normally, they put them in piles of 10 or
whatever; they make a bunch of piles. How do I know that my ballots never went
over here when they should have been over here, and my opponents went there when
they should have went there? How do I know they were counted properly? How do I
know they were recorded properly? That's what happens with scrutineering. That's
the whole purpose of scrutinizing an election. None of that happened.
I mean we can go on and on and on about the things that
happened, but we all know that. The big piece for me – I know there are court
cases going ahead and that's their right. We know there was one challenge that
was put in for a recount. That was turned down. There are a couple of challenges
going before the courts on – controverted election, I believe, is the
terminology they used. Fair enough.
The part I want to go back to, which I've gone to
before and my colleague has – and I have no axe to grind. I've said it before
and I'll say it again: I have no axe to grind with the Chief Electoral Officer.
He's done nothing to me. Not a thing. I have had no interactions with him,
really, other than when you send in your annual conflict of interest statement
or whatever. There is never anything questioned on that. Thankfully, I've never
been under investigation. I hope I never am.
I've had no real interaction with him. I don't know
him. I'm not his enemy; I have nothing against the man, but he's an Officer of
this House of Assembly. He was appointed by this House of Assembly. He's our
employee. We are his employer. He's answerable to us. It is beyond me why we
don't bring this person into this House and have the ability to question him or
even have a Committee – if we don't want to bring him into the House, at least
have a Committee. Use the House of Assembly Management Commission as an example,
and bring him in and question him on all these irregularities and all these
decisions that were made. Let him justify why he made them.
He even said himself to the national media that he
wasn't allowed to take votes over the phone. He said I'd be – what was it? My
head would be spinning or something if I did that and then he did it anyway. I
have to ask if this was the Auditor General or the Citizens' Rep or something
and they were doing things that were improper and so on, would we'd just say, oh
well, that's all you can do, b'y? That's all you can do. Would we?
I mean, that's the precedent we've set. We've set the
precedent that basically says an Officer of this House can make very
questionable decisions, breaches of the act – admitted to breaches of the act –
and we're going to pretend that it didn't happen. We're going to change the
legislation to make it better for next time. It doesn't matter what the
legislation is. We already have a piece of legislation. It is called the
Elections Act, 1991. He breached that,
admitted it and we're going to forget about it and pretend it didn't happen. I
just cannot understand for the life of me why we would do that. It makes no
sense. He needs to answer to it.
I'm not prejudging the outcome. Maybe he has a total
explanation for everything. Maybe this House of Assembly will say: Well, he made
a couple of minor errors in judgment, but not a big deal. He did the best he
could under the circumstance and we're satisfied with that. Maybe that will be
the outcome. I don't know. I don't even know if some of the things that are out
there are actually true, to be honest with you. A lot of it is hearsay. Some of
it is true, for sure. I have experienced a lot of it. Some of the things out
there are hearsay, but we need to get to the bottom of it.
The most fundamental right we have in a democracy is
the right to vote. That's it. That is your fundamental right. If we can't get
that right, everything else after that is secondary. People need to have
confidence. They have to have confidence in the electoral system. They need to
have confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer.
We also have to remember that the Chief Electoral
Officer holds a dual role. He is also the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards. He's the guy that's going to be investigating you and me if there is
a complaint on something. We need to ensure that he is impartial, that he's
fair, that he's competent and that he's non-political. This is impacting
everybody in this House. If he can't carry out an election properly, can he
carry out the other functions properly? Can we trust him to? I don't know. I'm
asking the question.
Again, it is not about him, there is nothing personal
here. It is about what happened and it is about having integrity in that
position. Someone that we can trust and someone we can have confidence in. The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not have confidence, at this point in
time, in that office. I don't have confidence. I don't. I have no confidence. We
know what would happen if this wasn't – if this was in private industry, how
long do you think this would last before it was dealt with? Immediate. You
wouldn't stand for it. It's not good enough for here either.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Next speaker, the hon. the Member for Mount Scio.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's almost worth speaking to take off the mask for a
little while, I have to say.
This bill, Bill 17, is extremely important and I don't
want to take away the gravity of what we're doing because it is extremely
important. That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising
from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money
not exceeding $1.5 billion. A billion with a B, as my colleague from Mount Pearl
- Southlands said.
That is a significant amount of money. I can't even
fathom how much money that is. I guess I want to assure the province that I have
confidence in our prudent financial decision-making and we will only use what is
necessary. In my department, in Digital Government and Service NL, we are
actively finding ways to save more. Anything that's nice to have we're not
doing. We're only doing the core things, so I hope to be able to save more than
what the Estimates are showing.
Then that's kind of a challenge, year after year. I
know that as we hopefully reduce the amount we borrow over the next so many
years, that target is going to increase the amount of money that we each have to
save. In my past life, in the private sector, saving money and doing more with
less was a core part of what my job was. It's very important to me and that's
giving me an exercise that I look forward to doing with my department and with
my colleagues over the next few years.
Shifting, I guess, because we can talk about our
districts and the budget. I'd like to highlight some things from the budget as
well as my district and my department. I'd like to recognize this week is Public
Service Week. This morning I handed out three certificates, one of 30 years and
two of 20 years, to long-serving public servants in Digital Government and
Service NL. I'd like to thank them and the entire public service for their work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you very much.
I'd also like to recognize and thank the staff of the
Queen's Printer. I know that during budget time, it's particularly busy for
them. They are up all night printing Budget Speeches and budget documents. I
just wanted to thank them as well. I know the task that they expect, but they
are here late in the night when everyone else goes home the night before, making
sure that we all have our very important budget documents. I just want a
shout-out to the Queen's Printer.
I just want to touch on some of the things in the
budget that are kind of smaller that I just want to highlight that are very
important to people in my district. The first one: I know the minister obviously
mentioned all these in her Budget Speech, but the Mother Baby Nutrition
Supplement and that's kind of closer to my world at the moment, obviously, with
a baby at home. The amount that low-income mothers are getting per month is
increasing from $60 to $100 a month for when they're pregnant and up until their
child is one so that they can hopefully afford more healthy food.
I'm not a nutritionist or a health expert, but I
understand that, obviously, the quality of food that the mother eats when she's
pregnant and also then for the first year of the baby's life while she's
breastfeeding, if she's luckily or able to do so and chooses to do so, it
significantly impacts the health of the child. I think that's a very important
initiative and I'm very pleased that we're able to increase that amount from $60
to $100 a month in the budget this year, Mr. Chair.
The other item I think that is worth noting – I don't
think it was announced this year, but it's a continuation of something that was
announced last year – was the low-income bus pass. In Mount Scio we have a lot
of residents on income support. They are in a range of different circumstances.
I'm sure none of them would choose to be in that situation. I think the bus pass
for them can go a long way for those residents, whether it's helping them get to
interviews or helping them travel to shop and get specials in different stores
where they wouldn't normally be able to walk, and they can travel with their
children on the bus.
I think that that is a great initiative that I know is
being funded again through this budget. It's not a new announcement, but I'm
very pleased that that's still there. I've worked very hard with my city
counterparts on that when the program was announced, so I'm very pleased that
we're still supporting that and it's very important to me in Mount Scio.
The other one that I'll mention is the Accessible
Vehicle Program. I've been recently helping constituents who have accessibility
needs and I guess I've been very fortunate to have been quite sheltered in my
life and I haven't had the same exposure to the challenges that some of my
constituents face. I think programs like this where we help residents with tax
relief and grants so that they can buy accessible vehicles for their families
and the Inclusion Grants program, I think those are incredibly important. I
don't know how some of my constituents do it on a day-to-day basis. I would
certainly support more of those programs, so thank you, Mr. Chair.
The other one I'd like to touch on is the $25-a-day
child care, which as a mother of an eight-month-old child who will hopefully
take advantage – we're on lots and lots of wait-lists, which I know is a popular
thing amongst new parents to put your child, as soon as they're born, on all the
wait-lists for child care. Hopefully we'll get a space, but you don't know.
Actually this morning I met with some daycare operators in my district, and they
were highlighting some of their concerns and also some recommendations. I look
forward to discussing more about some of the challenges that the daycare
operators have with the Department of Education. But it's very important, and I
think the benefit of the $25-a-day child care is felt and will be felt by
residents across the province. So it's incredibly important.
Lastly, I thought I'd give an update on the
breastfeeding journey, which I know for my colleagues I went into before. Well,
I know we represent people in our district and I'm very proud to represent the
economic powerhouse of Mount Scio, but I'm also here representing women, we're
here representing everyone and I'm also here representing the breastfeeding
women in Newfoundland and Labrador. In our Facebook group there are 6,900 active
breastfeeding women in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is twice the population
of Lewisporte. So there are a lot of –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
S.
STOODLEY:
No,
it is. Yeah.
There are a lot of breastfeeding women in Newfoundland
and Labrador and so I just wanted to give them –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
S.
STOODLEY:
No,
it's just for scale.
Now, there could be more. That's just the ones in our
Facebook group, which is very helpful and I have to recommend – all the tips and
things I've learned from that Facebook group. When I talked to my mother and my
mother-in-law, all the challenges they had that they would've never – obstacles
they would've never overcome if it wasn't for the support of those virtual
communities, especially through COVID.
It's going well. I'm not able to keep up with my son's
demands at the moment, so we do have some formula as well, which I know is a
challenge that many breastfeeding moms go through. He probably has 90 per cent
breast milk and 10 per cent formula. But that's okay, I'm trying my best. It
does mean pumping all day and all night, which is a thing. Someone on my team,
when we're here late, drops my breast milk off on their way home to my husband,
because we don't have a stash anymore. We're kind of using it as we pump it.
Angelica or someone on my team drops my breast milk home when we're staying late
here so that he can eat that for supper. Otherwise he will eat formula and that
would be fine. So it's logistically a new challenge. I'm not renting a pump
anymore, I've invested in a different pump and that's going well. It's battery
operated and I can pump in the car; not when you're driving of course.
I've read a lot of feminist things and I know from a
woman's perspective women spend more time getting ready in the morning. You
think about the pink tax and all that kind of stuff. Well, the breastfeeding tax
is even higher, I assure you. When I originally wrote my notes it was a
Wednesday morning, I think. So tomorrow morning when we get here at 10:30 I will
have breastfeed once and pumped twice, and I will have washed all my pumping
equipment twice and each pumping session is, like, 15 to 20 minutes and then
washing it. I will have spent probably an hour and a half feeding and pumping
and washing the pumping equipment before we get here at 10:30 in the morning, in
addition to my MHA and minister job, which I'm very happy to do because all that
is for the benefit of my son.
Just to, I guess, shine a light on some of the things
that a lot of women in our province are doing on a day-to-day basis. I guess I'm
trying to raise awareness of some of the complexities of breastfeeding, which I
know is very important for residents of the province and for their children. I
recently noticed that a breast pump is not a tax-deductible medical device from
the federal government, so I plan on writing the federal minister to recommend
that they make breast pump expenses taxable as medical devices because they are
not. I was very excited, I had all my receipts ready, I went to do my taxes and
I was, like, what? Anyway, that's an opportunity and maybe I can impact some
change there.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the budget, but the loan
is very serious and it's very important that we take that job very seriously.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not going to take too long tonight. I have 10
minutes; I don't know if I'll use them all. To me, despite the late hour and the
fact that it has been a long day, this particular bill highlights the real
problem we have as a province. The fact that we're here talking about having to
borrow $1.7 billion just to meet our needs for the province. It's a pretty
serious amount. My colleague from Bonavista pointed out in real language, we're
here talking about billions and billions of dollars and for a lot of people in
their homes who may be watching or just listening they have no concept of that.
It's $142 million a month, that's what we're talking about borrowing. Now,
that's a pretty large amount.
I think a couple of the key words the minister said
earlier in her speech are: up to and if needed. Clearly those are important
words because at the end of the day the objective, obviously, is to try to
borrow as little as possible. Some of that is within our control and some of it
is not. I mean, our budget is based on a number of projections around oil, our
offshore royalties and our taxation revenue. Then, of course, there are expenses
that we would normally budget for and then there may be some that are coming up
and that are unforeseen. We do have contingency monies in the budget in
different places. There might be some for certain parts of my district – I won't
say which. I just want to throw that out there. In all seriousness, it is a huge
amount of money. I look at the numbers and I recognize, though, that our
projected deficit for this fiscal year is $826 million. If we keep on target or
do better, then potentially we have an opportunity to borrow a lot less.
I noticed today when I was reading an article from
Goldman Sachs where they have actually raised their projections for Brent crude
now to say that they're looking to forecast – it's up to $75 US for the second
quarter of 2021 and up to $80 US for the third quarter of 2021. If those
projections hold true, it would have a significant difference in our budget if
we are able to maintain the same production. The minister alluded to in her
speech there that every $1 US a barrel, I think, works out to about $19 million
in royalties. That's a significant amount of money that could come into the
government should those oil prices move up.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
T.
WAKEHAM:
Yeah, and the exchange rate would help it even.
I mean, those are some of the factors and I recognize
that nobody wants to borrow $1.7 billion if we don't have to. We hope that the
projections again – there are obviously concerns around – we've talked about the
Terra Nova and what the impact of that may or may not be depending on what
happens with that project. I think we're here this evening and I certainly
haven't heard anything. Sometimes no news is good news, I guess, in the sense
that the talks must be continuing amongst the partners. We hope they're able to
work out a solution on that because there are a lot of people in the province,
of course, that depend on that. Again, that impacts our taxation. If all of a
sudden 400 or 500 people who currently work on that particular area are throw
out of employment, then it certainly has a significant impact on our economy,
our taxes and the spending in the province.
All of those things are all part of a budget and, as I
said, it's something that we really have to get a handle on. I truly hope that,
at the end of the day, this time next year when we're sitting here we'll be
talking about not having to borrow $1.5 million because we will still have a
significant amount of money left over from what we are about to pass today.
I look forward to continuing to ask questions and to
continue to probe and to get the answers and to see where this budget takes us
at the end of the day.
With that, I will conclude.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just going to have a few words about the budget and
just a few issues. I'll just let the people who are listening a bit know that
this is a money bill and we can talk about most anything in government, any
issues that we have.
One of the issues I'm going to speak about is the
election. I agree with my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands:
Why are we not doing something? Why are we not looking at some kind of
investigation into the election? It was a catastrophe. Right or wrong, it was a
catastrophe.
Mr. Chair, I said it before and I say it again, when
you had senior citizens coming to your door trying to get a photocopy of their
ID so they could vote, when you had people going up a camera with an extension
to take a picture of someone's driver's licence, there's something wrong. When
you get the Commissioner saying I can't take ballots over the phone or I'd be in
court so fast my head would spin, then take ballots, there's something wrong. I
use this for an example: When you have one party with a number to call in two or
three days before anyone else got the number to call in, there's something
wrong.
When you lose 140, 150 ballot applications faxed in,
can't find them until you're threatened and give his personal phone number – I
actually got threats from people saying: Are you sure you sent them in? I don't
think you did. And you had to go show them to the people and then give the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, his number to the office – finally they
found them – there's something wrong. I know a lot of seniors – a lot of them
women, a lot of women seniors.
I look forward to the minister for Status of Women now
asking for an investigation, because there were a lot of women who couldn't get
the ballots, a lot of women who lost ballots, a lot of women who couldn't even
get an application because they don't have a computer. Let's just see if the
minister for the Status of Women now, if you're true to your virtues, stands up
and asks for an investigation. Because a lot of people, Mr. Chair, that were
affected were elderly people who never had access to a computer.
The minister for Status of Women, you just stood up and
you're saying you're fighting for women's rights. I agree with you. Here's your
opportunity. You should demand an investigation. Because I can assure you that
if you had the number of women that knocked on my door that we had to go to
their house because they never had access to it, you would be outraged. Let's
see if you're going to stand up and be outraged. If not, you're letting the
women of this province down.
I'll say that to the minister and I'll stand with you.
I'll stand with you if you want to call for an investigation because as we know,
52 per cent of the population are women. Statistics show that if there were a
certain number that were disenfranchised, 52 per cent of them were going to be
women. I say to the minister of Status of Women, I'm with you. Let's get the
investigation going to find out why seniors who couldn't get there ballots or
seniors who never had access to a computer, never had access to a phone to
download a picture. Let's find out why. I'll stand with you.
I trust tonight now that you're going to stand up and
put a motion on this floor that we do an investigation. I can guarantee you that
I'll be the first one. You can even put me down to second that motion because if
you've seen the anguish on their faces, if you'd seen the grief on their faces,
men and women, if you had seen the grief and anguish on their face, Mr. Chair,
you would be in my – and I'm sure you did, too. I'm sure we all did.
This is not just my issue; it is not the Member for
Mount Pearl - Southlands's issue. I'm sure every member in this district seen
that and was a part of that, I'm sure. It is not just my issue. I just happened
to bring it up because I made a commitment that I would bring it up. I think
every Member in this House should be outraged. Every Member should be outraged.
When you have Aboriginals who never even had their ballots in their native
language, there is something wrong. How can anybody here in this democracy say
that the election was run properly? Anybody?
That is why we need the investigation; that is why we
need to hold the Commissioner for Legislative Standards accountable and let him
come in and explain to the House of Assembly. It is our duty, if the
explanations come in and they say, okay, here is why and we say, oh jeez, we
didn't know all that – there are a lot of questions we can ask – it is our role
then to go out and explain it to the general public and also then make the
improvements to the election committee to make sure it doesn't happen again.
That is our role. Until we get the facts of what happened, how can we explain to
the people who were disenfranchised?
And if you go on statistics, 52 per cent of the people
who were disenfranchised were women. Should they be disenfranchised? Should men
be disenfranchised? Of course not. This is what I'm saying. This is not a male,
female, but I look forward to the minister for the Status of Women to stand up
and put a motion in this House tonight. I'll second that motion right away, Mr.
Chair.
I'll be back to the election again sometime, but I just
want to speak about – there's a wellness centre in Placentia. I know I was
speaking to the minister. This wellness centre has been on the go four to five
years. This is a bit of a personal issue with me because if people can remember
this so-called bullying and harassment, the big scandal that rocked this House
of Assembly, one of the allegations that I had to defend myself on is that the
$30 million from Vale – I went and got federal funding and spent it all on the
West Coast. I had to go defend that. I actually had to send in documentation to
defend $30 million which we never even had.
I have to give the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board credit. She wrote a letter saying we never even got the money to
put in with the investigation. Never even had the money. But I had to go. I was
accused of slowing that down, spending the money and it's still not done.
The first issue I think now is resolved. I was speaking
to the minister that it may be in a flood plain, so they built it high enough to
mitigate that. Plus, also we know about the mental health facility. The second
thing now is that when they put it out for RFP, it came back a bit higher than
usual. I know the minister is dealing with the town council on that, trying to
work that out.
This is a great facility for the whole area. The town
can't afford the funding for it. The one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is finished.
That one hasn't even started. I urge the minister. I know the minister met with
the mayor or the town council; I'm not sure which. I know the minister is
working on it.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E.
JOYCE:
Both? Okay, thank you.
I ask the minister and the government to work on that
because this Town of Placentia, who put that in as a priority, has been working
on this for a number of years. I know Jamie down there with the Lions Club. They
raised almost $650,000. A local Lions Club raised $650,000 to go towards it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E.
JOYCE:
Here today, we're talking about volunteerism and talking about the private
sector and the public sector: This group did that down there. Jamie Neville, who
headed up the Lions Club, raised that amount of money, yet we have nothing to
show for it.
I'm not being critical of anybody here. It's us, as the
Legislature, and, me, who has a personal flavour to that. We have to try to find
a way for that. I know the minister is working with it. I'll say to the minister
now: If you need any extra details on that, I'll help wherever I can to get that
facility moving. I'll work with you because I know the town is anxiously trying
to get the RFP awarded. It's getting soon the steel is going to go up and they
may not have the funds to do it, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister for the conversations on that. I
thank him for meeting with the town council, but let's get this moving. Let's
sit down and say that this is something that's been on the go for a number of
years. It's something that the voluntary group – Jamie Neville and his group,
Mayor Bernie Power and others – have worked so hard to do. It's something that
has been delayed long enough. It's also a connection to their arena, so it would
be a wellness centre, not just a swimming pool for the area.
I urge the minister to keep working hard on this, which
he is, and working with the town council. Anything I can do or any history I can
put on that, Mr. Minister, I'll be more than welcome to pass that on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be brief. I just want to speak to this for a bit.
In the budget, like I said, we talked about the
investments in cellular service and all that. My biggest question I always have
with it – and the Minister of Industry has heard my gripes before about it –
when we go out and we give this money to any of the big three telecoms, the
large national telecoms, they're usually backed by fed money, provincial money
and stuff like that. Then, they bring in their own.
I went and got a cellphone for my daughter. I
accidently went in on the site with the company and that; it thought I was in
Nova Scotia. I said, oh, that's a good plan. That's pretty cheap from what I
thought I was used to. It told me I couldn't get it because I put in my address
and it said, oh no, you're Newfoundland and Labrador.
I put in the thing. It was more expensive per month
because of here. I stopped and thought for a second and I go aren't we, as a
province, investing in cellphone infrastructure for these large telecoms? Aren't
we putting money down for these? Yet they still take the time to gouge us. It's
unreal. I went and got a cellphone for my daughter's birthday. That's what I
went and got her, a cellphone. I just look at the price of adding up the bill.
We're paying more here in this province than we are in our neighbouring
provinces for coverage that we're investing in as a province. We're putting
public money, we're putting our taxpayers' money, into this infrastructure and
we're still being extremely ripped off, no doubt about it.
I stop and think and then go so if someone wants to get
a cellphone, a low-income person or a senior or anything like that, the amount
of money a month that these people are paying for these services now that are
required for day-to-day life – it's almost a necessity now of some sorts. Most
people now are not really fixed in place and landlines are a thing for offices
and that's about it now; you don't see many in a home.
We're investing in this infrastructure as a province,
but we still, at the end of the day, are paying the same price as if these large
companies are billing us. I always try to think that if we're going to invest
money into this infrastructure, there have to be conditions placed on these
companies to bring down the cost, to rein it in. It's outrageous. We're
expecting people like low-income people, seniors and stuff, to pay these massive
prices when they're on fixed incomes. It's unreal.
I think if we're looking at the budget and we're
looking at this, these things need to be taken into serious consideration; that
we try to do everything in our power to bring down costs of broadband, bring
down the costs of cellphones, bring down the cost of this. At the end of the
day, the taxpayers' money is going to go back into some of these investments
back into these communities for these companies. Yet they're not turning around,
looking at us and going, we'll bring down the cost, we'll bring down this to
help the residents of the province.
It's something that I just can't fathom. I can't get my
head around why we're allowing this. Yeah, I know telecom is a federal thing,
but we should be making a lot of noise about how much more we pay in this
province for these companies. We're paying more here than Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec – we're paying significantly more for telecom in this
province. Then we turn around and we have to pay the most. It's unreal. These
large companies – we're giving them taxpayers' money to do the upgrades to their
infrastructure and they turn around and charge the residents exorbitant amounts
of money.
It needs to be looked at. It's something that I have a
serious problem with and it's outrageous. These small communities are going to
get these towers, yes. Great, wonderful, should've been done a long time ago,
but when they have to go and buy their first cellphone and get their first phone
bill, they're going to realize very quickly that they're being gouged. We really
need to take a serious, serious look at when we invest public money into these
telecoms, about what they're charging back to the residents.
That's my gripe for this. I know that we're in last of
it so I will leave it there.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Any
further speakers to Bill 17?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak again. This
will be my last time for this evening. I know everyone is going to be
disappointed.
Mr. Chair, I normally don't get into little issues, so
to speak, in the district, because I'm usually pretty focused on the bigger
provincial issues. I just wanted to take this opportunity just for a number of
little quick points and kudos I wanted to throw out, in my district, in my
community.
First of all, Mr. Chair, I just want to acknowledge the
great work of Meghan Rubia in Mount Pearl. She's been involved with the Mount
Pearl Sports Alliance in the office for a number of years, along with Mike
Bugden. Meghan is going to be moving on to a new opportunity but we're all
certainly going to miss her. She's definitely been very much the face of the
Mount Pearl Sports Alliance. She's done tremendous work for sport in Mount
Pearl. I want to wish her all the best and thank her for all that she did in the
district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Mr.
Chair, I also want to mention – the next one is Seniors of Distinction. The
Seniors of Distinction Awards are coming out; they're taking nominations up
until June 28, I do believe. We certainly have tremendous seniors in our
district who have done yeoman service in many aspects of life; certainly, the
Mount Pearl Seniors' Independence Group is one that comes to mind. Whether it be
collectively or whether it be on an individual basis, we have a number of great
contributors. I'm certainly encouraging the citizens of Mount Pearl, and
Southlands as well, to consider nominating a worthy individual in their
district.
Mr. Senior – I'm not sure if you are. That probably is
true.
Mr. Chair, I also wanted to highlight that we did have
an incident in Mount Pearl and Paradise only a couple of days ago. It was a very
shocking event as it related to somebody took down the pride flag at the school
in Mount Pearl and also one in Paradise and they actually burned the flag. That
was a terrible situation, obviously, nobody in this House of Assembly would ever
support that and I know that people in my community don't support that.
I do want to throw kudos out to the City of Mount Pearl
in reacting to that, because our city council had been quite vocal publicly
about that issue and the fact that it is not something that we tolerate in our
community and it has been condemned. In addition to that, I have to say the city
made sure the pride flag is back up in the school of course.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Absolutely. But also the city has taken a step further with the pride flag,
outside city hall now in the nighttime they have all the different coloured
lights shining on the building so it kind of represents the pride flag in
lights. They have painted up the crosswalks with the pride colours. They have
done picnic tables. They even got logos now that are on the city vehicles; pride
logos attached to all the city – I don't know if they're on all of them but
certainly a number of the city vehicles as well.
I have to say that I have to give credit to the city
that they have taken this issue very seriously and they've done everything that
they can do to continue to send the message that we have a very inclusive
community and we will absolutely not tolerate any kind of discrimination or
hate. That's all that act was.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Mr.
Chair, next on the list here, I wanted to throw out a bouquet to 10-year-old
Gavin Mulroney of Southlands. Gavin, for the last few years – it's just an
initiative that he took on his own. He has a little lemonade stand out in front
of his house on Palm Drive in Southlands. Unfortunately, I never got there
yesterday, I was there last year. He had his lemonade stand, he was just selling
it for 50 cents a glass, he raised $124 – 10 years old and all the money he
raised goes to homelessness.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
I
think that is worth recognizing for sure.
Another very good news story I wanted to mention, I was
asked to – I have shared it on social media but I will bring it up as well now.
This is technically not in my district, I think it's in the Mount Scio District,
I could be wrong. It's right on sort of the border or close to border. Anyway,
Elim Pentecostal church, this Saturday – they asked me to sort of share this,
they contacted me – from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. they are – normally you see like a
flea market where you're selling household items and gently used clothing and so
on. They're not selling it as a flea market. They're giving it all away for any
families or anyone who's in need that want items. Kudos to the congregation at
Elim Pentecostal church for taking that initiative. That will be Saturday from
10 to 1.
I also wanted to mention, of course, this is Public
Service Week. I'm sure we all appreciate in this House of Assembly, we know all
the hard work that our public servants do. Sometimes they get a bad name,
unfortunately, in the public. There is this perception sometimes that you see.
I'm sure like any organization or any occupation there's always going to be
those that outperform and there are going to be those who underperform. That's
natural everywhere.
I have to say in my experience of dealing with the
public service here at the Confederation Building and so on or other government
departments, by and large, has been very, very positive. I know a lot of work
goes into – even the people who make this House of Assembly function, and
certainly the budgetary process as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
It's getting a little bit loud for the speaker.
Thank you.
P.
LANE:
I'd
like to throw out a bouquet to all of our public servants this week and let them
know that we all do appreciate the work that they do.
I also want to throw a bouquet out to the minister
responsible for natural resources.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P.
LANE:
Yeah, I own a flower shop here.
I do want to throw a little bouquet out to him. I did
read with great interest and I was pleased to read in a news release, it was
today or yesterday, but anyway, he indicated that he would be taking action on
Nalcor, on these ridiculous corporate bonuses and so on. It seems that he's done
just that; trying to reign in Nalcor, trying to get things under control, trying
to save some of the taxpayers' money and bring it in line with other public
entities and so on.
The man said he was going to do it and he did it. I
have to give credit where credit is due. I thank him for keeping his word in
that regard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Absolutely.
Mr. Chair, the final one I have here – and I did do a
Member Statement on this I think it was last week, but I do want to make mention
and congratulations to Mr. Herb Jenkins in my district. Herb is a long-time
community volunteer, but he's also an amazing soccer player. He was one of the
better soccer players in Newfoundland. He was one of two – I think he was even
better than the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at soccer. He's in the Mount
Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame; he's in the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of
Fame. He was one of two of the first Newfoundlanders to have national
certification in coaching and so on. He brought that expertise back here to
Newfoundland and he trained an awful lot of individuals.
While soccer is one of the big things he's known for,
the reality of it is, is that over the years pretty much anything that's been on
the go in Mount Pearl, Herb has been involved and he's made a tremendous
contribution.
Just last week, he was honoured by Mount Pearl Soccer
being made an honorary lifetime member. I think he's the third – I'm not sure if
it was the third or the fifth, but there's only a small group of them –
L.
STOYLES:
Five.
P.
LANE:
Five. My colleague for Mount Pearl North says five. So he's the fifth. I want to
congratulate Herb.
With that said, I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
I'm done for the night.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Any further speakers to Bill 17?
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 To Authorize The Raising Of Money By
Way Of Loan By The Province.” (Bill 17)
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 through 6 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 6 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 6 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 Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.
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 Bill 17 carried 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 consequent 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 –
CHAIR:
Seventeen.
S.
CROCKER:
Seventeen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
It's okay.
The motion is that the Committee rise and report the
resolution and Bill 17.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt this
motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is 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 Lake Melville and Deputy Chair
of Committees.
P.
TRIMPER:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means 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 Ways and Means report that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution
and recommend that a bill be introduced to give the same effect.
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:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Premier, 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:
“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to
authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the
province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”
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 Premier, that the resolution be
now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the resolution be now 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:
“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to
authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the
province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”
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 Premier, for leave to introduce
a bill entitled, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The
Province, Bill 17, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first
time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of
Loan By The Province, Bill 17, 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, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money
By Way Of Loan By The Province,” carried. (Bill 17)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.
(Bill 17)
On motion, Bill 17 read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Anybody that knows me knows it is well past my bedtime.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Premier, that Bill
17 be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now 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 To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.
(Bill 17)
On motion, Bill 17 read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Premier, that Bill 17 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.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.
(Bill 17)
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Authorize The Raising Of
Money By Way Of Loan By The Province,” read a third time, ordered passed and its
title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Premier, that this House do now
adjourn.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is 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 do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.