April 4, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 39
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please
In the
public gallery joining us today is the Poker family and friends from Natuashish
and Sheshatshiu.
Welcome
to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl -
Southlands, Ferryland, Exploits and Terra Nova.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, the measure of
any group is how they treat the less vulnerable and the Sunshine Kitty Rescue in
Corner Brook is a true example of true compassion.
This
group of dedicated volunteers, which operates out of the home of Janet Bennett,
rescues feral cats, obtains medical attention and finds homes for the kittens
and adult cats. These cats, which are fighting for survival, would be destined
to die from starvation and disease without this group's loving care.
This
group of volunteers raises funds through yard sales, seeks donations, ticket
draws and currently an Easter ticket sale organized by Janice Wells, a
volunteer. All monies raised go towards veterinarian bills, food and other
essentials needed to care for these animals.
I
visited Janet's home and her compassion and love for the animals is to be
admired. The group works hand in hand with the local SPCA to track, catch and
give these poor animals a chance to live a healthy life.
I ask
all Members to join me in recognizing these true volunteers, like many other
volunteer groups across this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who save so
many poor and vulnerable animals and provide them with care and a loving place,
which they will thrive in.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, just recently
myself, my hon. colleague from the District of Mount Pearl North and members of
the Mount Pearl city council had the privilege to attend a celebration to kick
off the 50th anniversary of the Mount Pearl Soccer Association.
This
amazing organization has a deep history in Mount Pearl, which actually took root
in our community in the fall of 1969 when another great community organization,
the Mount Pearl Kinsmen, began running programs after school and on Saturdays
for our community. Subsequent to that, in 1973, with the help of two of our
long-time community volunteers, Mr. Ed Moyst and Mr. Charlie Chaytor, the Mount
Pearl Soccer Association was formed and, as they say, the rest is history.
Over the
years, there have been endless milestones, achievements, championships and, most
importantly, thousands of the community's youth who have been positively
impacted by this amazing organization. Currently, the Mount Pearl Soccer
Association is providing programming for over 1,500 athletes at various levels
within the sport.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the staff, coaches and volunteers
of the Mount Pearl Soccer Association on achieving this significant milestone
and thank them for their ongoing contribution to the community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Mr. Speaker, I want to
recognize the late Nevaeh Denine and her mom, Holly Denine, who have been
recognized with the Governor General of Canada's Meritorious Service Medal for
civilians. This outstanding award recognizes great Canadians for exceptional
deeds accomplished over a limited period of time that bring honour to our
country.
There is
no doubt that Nevaeh did exactly this during her time on earth. Nevaeh passed
August 6, 2018, at the young age of nine.
Nevaeh's
Angel Foundation started as a
lemonade stand. With the help of Holly, her mom, and others, the project turned
into an annual event and became a foundation, a registered charity and a variety
of family-friendly projects throughout the year to raise money for Newfoundland
and Labrador children living with cancer and their families.
So far, Nevaeh's Angel Foundation has raised a half a million dollars and has
helped many families.
Speaker, I ask all Members in this House to join me in recognizing the late
Nevaeh Denine and her mom, Holly, on their outstanding work and recipient of the
Governor General of Canada's Meritorious Service Medal for civilians.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to congratulate the Town of Peterview and the Peterview Recreation Board on
receiving the Recreation NL Active Communities Award in 2021.
This
award is the recognition of the outstanding contribution in creating an active
and engaged community. In 2021, the town invested a 40,000 square foot green
space for people to use for recreational activities and also renovated its
walking trail through the park.
The
Peterview Recreation Board operates a free Wheels on Fire for mountain bike and
adventure club. Since its inception, this club has grown to over 60 children.
This club has also introduced the aspect of canoeing.
Speaker,
I would like for all Members of the House of Assembly to congratulate the Town
of Peterview on being awarded the Active Community Award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
Janice Davidson was the toughest and most inspirational person I ever had the
privilege to call a friend. She embodied grace, love and hope. It was the power
of her hope that helped inspire an entire movement by sharing her 14-year cancer
journey. She impacted thousands of cancer patients and their families across
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Sometimes in life we are fortunate, as individuals, to be one piece of another's
intricately woven quilt, to be a piece of their fabric and rare are the
individuals who can bring community and friends together to weave such a
beautiful, warming and uncompromising quilt. Not any ordinary piece of fabric,
this one that for many years has warmed and inspired all of her friends, family
and countless other individuals, most of whom didn't even know Janice was the
reason that they had hope.
Hope was
always Janice's gift. It was unconditional. She embraced everyone who had the
privilege of knowing here and many that never met her.
Michael
J. Fox once said: We are the heroes of our own stories. Well, Janice was not
only the hero of her story; she was the hero for many other stories.
Please
join me in honouring the life and journey of Janice Davidson. Not all heroes
wear capes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Speaker, this is National
Wildlife Week and I would like to take this opportunity to invite residents to
learn about the many benefits provided by our province's wildlife and encourage
everyone to take time and enjoy all that our wonderful outdoors has to offer.
We will
be celebrating all week and will conclude by hosting a National Wildlife Week
Expo to promote awareness of the province's wildlife. This unique event will
take place this Sunday, April 10, at the St. John's Farmers' Market from 10:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. Admission is free and we are inviting everyone to take part in
the fun.
The Expo
will include representation from local science education organizations, local
artists engaged in wildlife-minded works, as well as other organizations that
support wildlife conservation, biodiversity and the sustainable use of wildlife.
There
will be prize giveaways and a wide array of activities to educate and entertain
the public, including environmental and wildlife-themed booths, activities and
games, hands-on demonstrations and eco-science vendors.
For more
information and interesting facts about National Wildlife Week, check out the
Friends of Salmonier Nature Park Facebook page.
Finally,
I would like to thank staff in the department for their dedicated efforts
planning this event and their ongoing work to manage, highlight and promote the
wildlife resources of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Over the
years people have actively participated in National Wildlife Week to bring
awareness to all those who are involved in wildlife conservation, biodiversity
and sustainable use of our wildlife.
Speaker,
although this week talks about the many benefits that both nature and wildlife
provide to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, there are many in our province who
are still struggling to complete their own moose licence applications. We need
to ensure that the access to the big game licenses is both fair and accessible
for people who come from all walks of life so that everyone in our province has
an equal opportunity to spend time in the great outdoors.
I
encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take part in the various
events that are taking place over the course of this week so that they can learn
more about our natural environment and the benefits that this provides to all of
us.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Our wildlife is
something that we must steward and protect for generations to come. If the
province wishes to do its part, it should recognize the devastating impacts of
climate change and extreme weather on biodiversity in this province. Inaction on
climate change destroys habitats and moves species closer to the brink of
collapse.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
week, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were informed that an additional
200,000 health care records were taken by malicious actors. The provincial
government sat on this information for over a month.
I ask
the Premier: Does withholding this information from the public meet
duty-to-disclosure standards as set out in the Cameron inquiry?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
hon. Member knows we did a broad disclosure as soon as we knew about it back in
the fall, telling people that there was potential that their records could have
been accessed. We did a broad and full disclosure as soon as it became known to
us what the implications were. Over that time, Eastern Health learned that there
were other issues that arose and they did a targeted disclosure, and will
continue to disclose as information is available, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
But I
need to remind the Premier that for over a month people's personal information
was out there, being used, potentially, by adverse people who should not have
had access to that. Yet, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not know
about what was happening with that information.
This
inquiry defined an adverse health event as – and I quote: “An event which
results in unintended harm to the patient, and is related to the care and/or
service provided to the patient ….”
I ask
the Premier: How are you ensuring the duty-to-disclose adverse events are being
met in response to this cyberattack?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Eastern
Health has been doing a good job, I think, in informing the public and informing
patients. We have done a full disclosure, as I said, that patients' information
could have been accessed.
As the
information becomes more available and there's a deeper dive, there will be
further disclosures along the way, targeted to the people who have been
specifically impacted.
So broad
disclosure at first; targeted disclosure along the way. We're not trying to hide
anything here, Mr. Speaker, and as we've done in the past to protect the credit
ratings, we'll be there in the future for years to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We could
have used the example or followed the example of Ireland where they were open
and transparent with people from the start of this whole process.
When
news broke that the federal Liberal Cabinet was split over support for Bay du
Nord, it was suggested the province could negotiate a give-and-take agreement
whereby Bay du Nord would be exchanged for other assets in the oil and gas
industry. In fact, the federal minister also said that discussions were under
way with the Premier.
I ask
the Premier to be open with the people of this province: What is being
negotiated with the federal government?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr. Speaker, what is being
said to the federal government is the strength and merit of Bay du Nord Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I fought hard to make sure
that message gets through that it stands not just on its economic merits, it
stands on its environmental merits and it stands now, more than ever before, on
its geopolitical merits, Mr. Speaker. That is the message that I have delivered
strongly, firmly to my federal counterparts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We need
to be reassured that all are fighting to ensure the Bay du Nord Project goes
ahead, and that our oil and gas industry is a fluent industry for the people of
this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, our Premier often
likes to boast about his strong relationship with Ottawa, yet his government
have no say over the Bay du Nord Project, nor our fishery. Just last week, we
learned the federal Fisheries minister announced a moratorium on the mackerel
fishery in our province. Both the provincial Fisheries Minister and the Premier
claims that they knew nothing about it, just like Bay du Nord.
I ask
the Premier: Who is in charge of our future, Prime Minister Trudeau or the
Premier and the Cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
said, I've fought hard and will continue to fight hard on behalf of the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, including people in the fishery, including people
in the offshore oil industry, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I've made my position very firmly known to everybody in Ottawa where
we stand on Bay du Nord and the future of our offshore. It's low carbon
emitting. It is the product that the world needs right now during this time of
transition.
As the
Member opposite should fully know, we don't control the science at DFO. That is
exclusively a federal jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, and frankly would be wrong for
us to meddle in the science of DFO decision-making. We have seen what happens
before when you meddle and it doesn't go well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Let's
hope the people in Ottawa listen to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who
know better and know what's meant to the future of this province here, Mr.
Speaker.
Speaker,
Rothschild has lined their pockets with $5 million of taxpayers' money, yet the
Minister of Finance is refusing to release details of the report to the people
of the province.
I ask
the Premier: Will you commit that the sale of any public assets considered in
this review would be debated here in the people's House, in the House of
Assembly by all Members of the House?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course Rothschild has just delivered the report; we're doing analysis of it now,
Mr. Speaker. This is a new kind of decision-making that we need. We need to
understand what assets are worth, where they're positioned in the portfolio, for
the future of our province, just as you would manage your own personal
portfolio. So now we need to understand what the value is; we need to make sure
that they're well positioned into the future for a sustainable future for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the Premier likes to
comment that he's an agent of change. I would suggest that his government and
him are simply secret agents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
They do not want to release
the findings of the Rothschild report.
The
Minister of Finance has received the Rothschild report; it cost the taxpayers of
this province over $5 million.
Will the
Minister of Finance do the right thing and release the Rothschild report to the
people of the province who actually own the report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
This is
the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador's history that a thorough review of
our assets have been undertaken. It's been undertaken by this government to make
sure that we're managing the assets of this province, of the people of this
province very, very well.
We've
just received the report from Rothschild. Mr. Speaker, we're going to be very
sensible and very responsible. We don't want to have unintended consequences. We
want to make sure that the commercial and sensitive information does not impact
– I'm going to say – or diminish the potential value of any of those assets.
So we're
going to be responsible and we're going to be sensible about what we do with the
Rothschild report and we're going to do a thorough analysis, which is now under
way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I remind the
minister, where there is no transparency, there is no accountability.
I ask
the minister: Maybe she can tell us how many pages are actually in the
Rothschild report or what the colour of the front cover is. But people of the
province absolutely need to know what is in the report and it needs to be
released.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, that was a pretty
flippant question. I will say to the people of the province that they would want
us to be sensible and responsible, unlike some of the decisions of the former
Progressive Conservative government. I will say to the people of the province,
this is a very important report in that it's the first time in the province's
history that we're doing a thorough review of the assets.
We want
to maximize those assets; we want to make sure that we don't have any
diminishment of the possibility of those assets. We want to make sure that we
are responsible with that report and will continue to be responsible, unlike
Members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, it's an
embarrassment. The minister stands up and says they want to be accountable to
the people of the province, yet, at the same time, they refuse to release this
report to the people of the province.
Where is
the accountability? Where is the transparency? These are public assets. If you
can't trust the people with the public assets, how do you expect the people to
trust you?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I will say to the Member
opposite that we don't want to diminish or provide information that would be
commercially sensitive to any outside parties. We don't want to do that. We want
to make sure we're valuing those assets for the potential of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Speaker,
we're going to continue to be responsible. We're going to continue to be
sensible. We're going to continue to be very smart on this side of the House.
We're going to review that report. We're going to determine if there's anything
that we need to do to advance anything in that report and then I'm sure the
people of the province will hold us to account.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So, potentially, you could
have paid somebody $5 million to keep it here and pay someone here.
Last
November when this House was debating off-road vehicle legislation, the minister
said not once, not twice, but three times that we are seriously considering
exceptions for helmets on Side By Sides. But last week in the media, the
minister said – quote – I think it is something people just need to get used to.
Minister, can you please clarify – will people have to wear helmets in
factory-sealed Side By Sides with seat belts or harnesses and roll bars?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you Speaker.
I just
want to thank the Member for the question and thank members of the public that
I've heard from lately. We are still tweaking the regulations but, until that,
we wanted to give the public ample time to make sure that they had their
helmets. So helmets will be mandatory on all off-road vehicles as of May 19 of
this year. The only exemption will be for hunting and trapping activities if
your speed is under 20 kilometres an hour.
Also,
we're very pleased with the safety improvements that we've made. We're trying to
save lives, Mr. Speaker. So we want to give everyone enough time to make sure
that they have their helmets.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I agree; it is about safety.
And we listened to the people over here on this side and that's what the people
wanted that have Side By Sides. They want to have no helmets on when they've got
the harness. It's not just a Side By Side that's open; it's a Side By Side for
safety.
I ask
the minister: When she stated in November that such helmets would not be
required on factory-sealed Side By Sides, was that misinforming or misleading?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you Speaker.
I'd just
like to clarify that we never ever committed to doing that. We committed to
reviewing it and we committed to seriously considering enclosed Side By Sides
because we did hear from many members of the public about that specifically.
Speaker, we did seriously consider it. We've reviewed a range of research. We
spoke with our safety partners.
I'd
encourage all people who own an enclosed Side By Side to look at the manual. All
the manuals of all the major manufacturers indicate that you should wear helmets
in your enclosed Side By Sides. There's a flashing light on many of them that
says wear a helmet, wear a helmet. They're designed to be driven with helmets
and you can buy helmets specifically to be worn in enclosed Side By Sides.
We also
did a range of research I'd be happy to chat about further.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Minister, back in November,
you led the people to believe otherwise, and we debated that. So where is that
going – what happened to that all of a sudden? We had agreed in this House when
we made this legislation that it would be dealt with in regulations and we
haven't heard from anybody.
So can
you please answer the question?
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
So
safety is most important for us in coming up with the ATV regulations and the
legislation for off-road vehicles, Speaker. When you look at a Side By Side
versus other – a lot of people raise, what about a convertible, what about a
Jeep, you can go on a highway. These off-road vehicles are very different from
roadworthy vehicles, Speaker. Transport Canada has a range of very high
standards for roadworthy vehicles that are not in place for Side By Sides.
Convertible have hidden roll bars. I understand BMWs have special things that
kind of pop up as soon as you're going to roll over.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order!
S. STOODLEY:
Roadworthy vehicles have very
sophisticated safety systems, Speaker, that off-road vehicles don't have, and I
can go on and on about why we decided to ensure the safety of the people of the
province and make helmets mandatory in all Side By Sides.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
The minister is bringing
legislation into this House to bring NL911 into the Department of Justice and
Public Safety.
Why is
the minister proceeding full-steam ahead with this, ignoring the unanimous
opposition from the current NL911 board?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yes,
that's correct; we are bringing NL911 into the government from an arm's-length
separate corporation as it exists right now. The reason we're doing that is we
want to ensure that the public safety in this province that comes through the
department is as fulsome as it can be. There's no need to have one facet of this
entity outside of government.
We have
things like the province-wide radio system for safety throughout the province.
We have things like the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre. We're
implementing recommendations from the ground search and rescue report, from the
inquiry that came out of that. We want to make sure that the Emergency Services
branch within the department is fulsome, and to leave a gap in that could be a
risk. As the Member opposite should know, every second matters in an emergency
and I want to make sure that we have every second available to us. And that's
why we're bringing 911 into the department.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, fulsome
safety has been addressed by the current existing system, so that does not
respond to the question.
NL911
has about $20 million saved up for the implementation of Next Generation 911.
Instead of keeping this money in the dedicated separate fund, as it is now, the
money will be added to general revenue where it can be used for any purposes.
I ask
the minister for a commitment that this money will be used for future service
enhancements, like Next Generation 911.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
There is
money in the fund right now that's outside of government, which has been sitting
there for quite some time and will sit there for at least another three years,
because we cannot proceed – no one can proceed, whether it's a board outside of
government or a group within government, can proceed with Next Generation 911
until CRTC makes that decision, and my understanding is that decision will not
be made for at least three years, until 2025. To have those funds sit outside of
government for another three years seems like a bit of waste to me.
We will
bring that money into consolidated revenue when 911 is brought in, and we have
committed to Next Generation 911. I'd also like everyone in the House to know
that we are not the first to do this in this country. Eight other jurisdictions
in this country have 911 within their department of justice and public safety.
So rather than be different and do things on the outside, where we might create
risk to the public safety, we'd rather do things right like the rest of the
country and make sure the public is safe.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Sometimes it's good to be different. You have to look at the unique settings in
our province. Sometimes it's good to be different. We don't want to be
followers; we want to be leaders.
Speaker,
other provinces have taken steps to attract and retain front-line health care
workers. For example, Quebec will train 1,000 foreign nurses and integrate them
into their health care system. A win-win for both the health care system and
attracting immigrants.
I ask
the minister: Will a similar program be implemented here in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
opportunity to talk about some of our recruitment and retention initiatives.
In
advance of what we saw as a coming crunch, we increased the number of LPN seats
in the province by 90 per cent. We increased the number of PCA seats in the
province by 70 per cent. We have had a graduating class of LPNs in December and
two graduating classes of PCAs to help deal with our staffing shortages within
the health care system.
We have
repatriated the advanced care paramedic course from Qatar; there are 24 seats
for homegrown graduates. We have increased the number of seats on the PCP
program through CNA by 12 seats. We had added rural satellites to the Bachelor
of Nursing program across the province and they will be ready for this coming
September to increase the number of nurse graduates.
I have
an extensive list, Speaker, but I see you're winding me down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I'm glad someone could wind
him down.
Speaker,
recently the Government of Nova Scotia announced a program. I thought it was
pretty innovative. It guarantees every nursing school graduate a job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. DINN:
This is an example, but it is
innovative. I mean, we're different; we can be innovative, too.
So here
is the question, I ask the minister: Will a similar program, not exact, but will
a similar program be implemented in our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
To
continue, we had a $30-million program aimed at bolstering health care
recruitment and retention. We are in the final stages, I hope, of hiring an
assistant deputy minister who will head a recruitment secretariat. Once that
individual is in place, we will have a formal office within the department,
which will help coordinate regional health authority activities.
In the
meantime, the regional health authorities have their own plans. I am aware of
very robust activities, for example, in Central Health who hired an entire class
of LPNs – sight unseen – on the spot. All 30 of them in December for their
long-term care facilities, which I am pleased to say the Premier and I cut the
ribbon on last week; 60 more beds for long-term care patients in Central.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We all
know a bed is just a bed unless you have someone next to that bed to care for
the person in it. It is great to open 100 beds or 500 beds. You just have to
listen to our nurses who will tell you how understaffed we are. So a bed is just
a bed.
Speaker,
the Government of Alberta has implemented their RESIDE Program providing $2
million to 20 new rural family physicians in each of the next three years.
I ask
the minister: Will a similar program be implemented in our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Part of
our $30-million program for recruitment and retention involved every single new
primary care physician in this province getting a $100,000 non-repayable loan in
the event they stay for five years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HAGGIE:
Every new primary care
physician who sets up a practice in a collaborative team environment will be
guaranteed their income for the first two years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HAGGIE:
In addition to that, we have
a bursary program for health care providers, not just physicians and not just
medical students and residents, which has had an extremely good success rate. In
actual fact, the physician bursary program has not had a single dropout in the
last 10 years; all of them have completed their returns in service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If you
listen to – of course, you have to be at the meeting and stay – your recent
graduates, they'll tell you that the bursary program here is not sufficient
enough, but you have to be at the meeting to hear that.
In June
2020, the province signed a six-year deal with the US-based Change Healthcare.
We are now almost a third of the way through this contract, which includes a
$5-million penalty for the province if it does not reach the adoption rate of 95
per cent. Because we've got money to throw away.
I ask
the minister: What is the status of this agreement, its implementation and the
potential $5-million penalty?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I think
it's worth, for the record, correcting the preamble from the Member opposite's
question. He is referring to a meeting of new residents in primary care, which I
was invited to attend, bring greetings and there was no expectation of anything
beyond that. I actually asked if they wanted me to attend. They simply said it
would be great, just bring greetings and that's fine. So that is exactly what I
did.
The
contract that the Member opposite refers to is one that is performance based and
it is under the understanding that over the course of the contract there will be
significant savings realized over the course of the 10-year program. This is not
yet fully implemented and, therefore, nothing has been triggered one way or
another as yet, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, under this Liberal government a plan was released to double oil
production called Advance 2030. Yet,
this Premier has taken part in the cancelled seismic program, the delay for our
offshore bids and is allowing the federal government to hold Bay du Nord
hostage.
Can he
explain why the Liberals have thrown out their very own plan for our oil and gas
development?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question and an opportunity to discuss our oil and gas sector. In
fact, when we talk about any of our resources it's a great opportunity to
discuss it.
I guess
I would begin by saying that we certainly haven't thrown out any plan here. The
reality is that in the last couple of years, certainly when I came into the
role, we faced perhaps one of the most difficult times in the industry worldwide
that we had ever seen. We had prices that had collapsed; we had projects that
were falling apart.
So what
I can say is since that time and since we've had the new government here, I will
say that we've actually gone out and leveraged $320 million to spend on the
offshore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
We spent $35 million to talk
about the supply and service side. In fact, the Premier and I were down to visit
one of the operations today. We've done the Offshore Exploration Initiative and
we worked together to make sure Terra Nova happened. So we're going to continue
to do those things, including projects like Bay du Nord.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Perhaps they should visit
Guyana and see how quickly they're advancing.
Advance 2030
reads: “To sustain oil and gas industry growth and development through 2030,
increased exploration drilling is an immediate priority.”
Considering that this Premier has allowed the cancellation of our seismic
program and the deferral of our offshore land sale, is exploration still a
priority?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
I just want to go back to the
preamble there about Guyana; I will point out two things. It's difficult to
consider a province in a federation the same as Norway or Guyana, but I will say
that we're very proud of the work that our jurisdiction, our province has done
in Guyana. We continue to lead the way there and to help them.
What I
will say is we have certainly not tossed out offshore exploration. In fact, we
just renewed the second round of that to work with companies. It was just last
year we were talking about all the negative things that were happening; there
were rigs being towed away.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, what I'm happy to point out is that right now there are rigs being
towed here and there is more to come.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
One rig, West Hercules, two
wells; first time in the history of this province that we haven't had rigs in
the water since 1979.
Right
now, our offshore oil and gas industry is being used as a political bargaining
chip by a federal alliance, your cousins. As we speak, Ottawa, not Newfoundland
and Labrador, is deciding the future of our offshore oil and gas industry.
I ask
the Premier: Are you willing to preside over the dismantling of our offshore oil
and gas and the displacement of the families in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
just a tad bit of hyperbole there in that question when you talk about the
dismantling of the offshore oil sector here. The reality is that's simply not
the case. The reality is that a lot of things have changed over a period of
time. There's something they didn't deal with a whole lot in 1979, that was
climate change. That's something that we deal with here.
What I
will point out – and I've said in numerous interviews over the last number of
weeks and months – is that we are at the forefront here in terms of renewable
and non-renewable resources in this province. We have the luxury of both. We
continue to invest in both, we continue to work with operations in both and we
will continue to lead the way. I'm absolutely excited to look towards what is
bound to come for this province as it relates to our resource industry.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the MHA for Torngat Mountains reached out to the Minister of Health on behalf of
Simeon Poker. For almost two years, Mr. Poker has been waiting for the surgery
to get his kidney from his donor brother. Simeon's family and supporters were on
the steps today and are here in the gallery in solidarity with him.
Will the
Minister of Health intervene and address the barriers that have seen him wait
almost two years for the operation and restore the lost faith of the Poker
family and the Innu people in the province's health care system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
certainly wish the Poker family and the individual concerned well in their
journey to recovery. What I can say to the Member opposite and have said,
through copied emails, to the Member for Torngat Mountains is that decisions
about clinical treatment, who administers it, what that kind of treatment is and
where it is delivered are solely – solely – the decisions of doctors, clinicians
in this province. They are not the decisions of politicians or civil servants.
What I
can also say, as I have checked with Eastern Health, the appropriate members of
Eastern Health leadership are in communication directly with the family on these
matters as well as the clinicians concerned.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
argue that from the Poker family's point of view such is not the case. A kidney
has been found; it's been approved. Two years waiting for this – unacceptable,
and I think that something is going to have to be done to make sure that Simeon
gets the kidney that he already has, that he needs.
Speaker,
the federal climate action plan falls short on climate action but outlines
opportunities for workers and the economy. It speaks of job creation and
investment in infrastructure.
I ask
the Premier: When will this province start seeing the green stimulus from
Ottawa's plan?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
was one of many people in this province and elsewhere that were interested to
see what the federal government had put out in terms of emissions reduction, and
I was happy to see them put out significant investment in that plan as well.
Whether we're talking about zero-emission vehicles, whether we're talking about
retraining, transition, we're happy to be a part of that.
What I
will say is that we just released our own Renewable Energy Plan that we're
seeing a significant amount of work on, and I anticipate more positive
announcements along those lines to come in the number of months. I will say that
we're going to continue to do what we can as it relates to our
emissions-reduction work as it relates to the oil and gas sector. We see a
future in this province for workers in both sectors and, in fact, I'd like to
see us have the biggest issue being getting enough people for the workforce
demands that we will have.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The cost
of living only continues to increase in this province. Government boasted about
increasing the province's food security and reduce the dependence on foods being
shipped into the province.
While
this is admirable, people have only seen prices in grocery stores going up. So
what is this government going to do to address the cost of living for people of
this province in this upcoming budget?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed
the people of the province are experiencing cost-of-living challenges. In fact,
I'd say everyone in the world is finding that right now because of what's
happening with post-COVID and with what's happening in the Ukraine – very, very,
very difficult times.
That is
why, a number of weeks ago, we did announce an increase in the Income Supplement
– a special stipend going to those on income support: $200 for single people and
$400 for families. It's already been mailed to them, as well as an increase in
the Seniors' Benefit.
Speaker,
I will say that it is challenging times; we recognize that. We'll look to the
budget on Thursday to see if there's anything else that we can possibly do for
the people of the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I ask:
Will the Minister of Education confirm that the 30 additional teacher units that
he said were added as a result of Afghan students have been assigned to schools
where Afghan and other children of refugee families attend?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
can confirm for the Member is that we have seen an increase in student enrolment
this year, Mr. Speaker – the first time in 50 years – and that is absolutely
something to be celebrated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. OSBORNE:
Based on the increased
enrolment, we have added additional resources at the request of the NLESD and
the NLESD has determined where those resources are needed.
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.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you Speaker.
Speaker,
I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Judicature Act, Bill 53.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I
give notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order
11(1), that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2022.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker,
I
give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution – resolution
respecting the reappointment of members of the Independent Appointments
Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS subsection 6(3) of the
Independent Appointments Commission Act provides that five members
are to be appointed to an Independent Appointments Commission by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and
WHEREAS subsection 6(4) of the act provides that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council designate one of the members of the commission to
be chairperson; and
WHEREAS subsection 7(1) of the act states that a
commissioner may be reappointed for one
additional three-year term to
be served consecutively; and
WHEREAS
the terms of the following members have expired: Earl Ludlow, chairperson; Cathy
Duke.
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons be reappointed members of
the Independent Appointments Commission for a term of three years: Earl Ludlow,
chairperson; and Cathy Duke.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move that the
Standing Orders Committee comprise the following Members: Member for Carbonear -
Trinity - Bay de Verde; Member for Mount Scio; Member for Windsor Lake; Member
for Harbour Main; Member for –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
That is
for the Orders of the Day.
L. DEMPSTER:
Sorry, my apologies. Day one,
Speaker.
SPEAKER:
That's okay. You're doing a
great job.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, as the MHA for
Stephenville - Port au Port, I would like to move the following private Member's
resolution to be debated on Wednesday, April 6:
WHEREAS
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are urging the government to provide some
relief from escalating high prices which are leaving many people in dire
straits; and
WHEREAS
government decisions such as lowering certain tax rates or offering home heating
rebates would provide relief that many people urgently need; and
WHEREAS
the Health Accord says the social determinants of health such as income for
food, medicine and housing have an even greater impact on health outcomes than
the health system;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the government to consider
providing some much needed relief from escalating high prices in the 2022
budget.
It is
seconded by the Member for Harbour Main.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the private
Member's resolution introduced by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port
will be debated in this hon. House on Wednesday.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Any further notices of
motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
stand again and the petition is concerning cataract surgeries on the West Coast.
It is very interesting. I just made a note – the Minister of Health and
Community Services just made a statement to a Member when talking about
surgeries; he said it is up to clinicians to decide where the surgery is going
to be. Now, all of a sudden, to hear we have an Apex centre, three professionals
and the government is not allowing them to do the surgeries. Now they are trying
to force them to go to a place – I'll just give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and
I put that in writing so I gave everybody a heads-up.
The
Minister of Health and Community Services – this is very dear to me – made a
statement in the media, The Telegram,
and here's what the minister said: They can go to Corner Brook or Stephenville
and start right now.
I wrote
Stephenville, I wrote Western Health and I asked. Here's what they said in
writing: There has not been a cataract surgery completed at Sir Thomas Roddick
Hospital since January 2021 because of the equipment – they had some code
probably because of COVID, which would have been done in the Apex building – and
because of supplies.
So when
the Minister of Health and Community Services – I don't mean to be picking on
him, but I'm using his own words – gave the people in Western Newfoundland the
impression that they can go to Stephenville and get it done when it's just not
true.
I'll
just you an example. So just say Western Health opened up their surgical ward
for these three professionals for two months and said: Go do your surgery; Sir
Thomas Roddick Hospital: Open up your surgery for two months, go do it. They'll
go in and get paid 23 per cent higher than they would at the Apex. So money is
not the issue. They could do it at the hospital if it was available.
The
minister also stated that there are times at Western Memorial. Just to give you
an example: there are two days there. One of the specialists – and I'm not sure
if the minister is aware of it, but I will make him aware – does glaucoma for
the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So if you want to stop doing
glaucoma for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to create a backlog on
this very important surgery so you could do cataracts, which could be done at
another building at a cheaper price, so that's what the impression is the
minister is saying.
There
are 700 or 800 people in this province right now in Western Newfoundland who
half of them can't see me speaking because of cataracts, and we can get it
started tomorrow. For God's sake, Government, there's no need; money is not the
issue. For God's sake, get this done.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time is expired.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
In 2016,
the government cut the number of home care hours for seniors and increased the
contribution they would have to pay to obtain and maintain home care hours.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the amount of hours for seniors' care at
the previous or lower rate so as to ensure seniors remain in their homes for
longer periods of time.
Speaker,
this is a continuing story all across the province. In 2016, the Liberals cut
the home care hours to seniors to live in their own homes. They increased the
contribution that the clients had to pay. Health care for seniors is very
important especially when they stay in their own homes. It's been proven that
they're healthier and their outcomes are a lot better. It's a lot less stress.
But the seniors are forced to pay for those extra hours.
Actually, it's harder to get home care hours because of COVID. In the last
couple of years, Speaker, receiving home care hours, getting the assessments and
everything done, it's been a real challenge for them and they feel the stress of
it. Now, with the high cost of living, especially with the high cost of living
right now, the contribution would mean a great deal to the seniors, to have that
back or reduced – the contribution to help them pay for oil.
I had
one senior phone me on Friday, actually, wondering what to do with regard to
oil. Some time in December she had it, it was $560 for a tank of fuel. It cost
her $987 Friday morning. That's why she called. She was moved by it, she was
upset by. This is not fair to seniors. We need to do more to contribute to the
seniors with regard to the home care hours that they need to stay in their own
homes. This just doesn't cut it.
The 10
per cent subsidy they're going to receive in July, don't cut it for now,
Speaker, when they're cold and need food. They need warmth and to see an oil
bill double in three months to a senior who has to pay more for their home care
hours, it doesn't make sense.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation work hard each year so
snowmobilers can enjoy a very safe ride. Unfortunately, their work gets hampered
by individuals plowing licence-to-occupy roadways, in turn taking away essential
routes for snowmobilers.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to change legislation or to add a regulation that
would address this issue and help our snowmobiling season be successful.
Speaker,
throughout the winter, of course, in Central Newfoundland and Labrador,
snowmobiling is great. We have many, many trails. We try to get as many people
in there as we possibly can for tourism. We attract so many people.
Unfortunately, these trails are being hampered once again by people who want to
plow a road for a cabin that might be a little bit further.
Some
suggestions that I would have for the government, possibly, is to try to put
something into a regulation that says you can probably plow half the road for an
emergency access or whatnot, but something else needs to be done because these
vital trails are being cut off, these roadways are being cut off.
When a
snowmobiler comes up to a freshly plowed road by somebody who can do it right
now, because there's nothing there to stop them, it's just dirt and gravel and
they can't get their snowmobile through. Unfortunately, it pretty much ruins
their ride and it ruins their experience.
So I'm
just asking if somebody from government could take a look at this, ensure
something is put in place so we have a mechanism that would stop people from
plowing kilometre-long roads, which once again is taking away vital trailways
from snowmobilers.
I know
that the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation have been quite
vigilant on this for some time now. I just want to help them as much as I can. I
hope we can all pull together and help them out and come up with a solution for
this.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows: Eastern Health has recently
repositioned one of the ambulances from the Trepassey area to the Cape Broyle
area. This has left one ambulance in the Trepassey area. Residents of Trepassey
and the surrounding area are at least two hours from the nearest hospital.
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 ensure the residents of Trepassey area have
accessibility to an ambulance in time of emergency by repositioning a second
ambulance back in the Trepassey area to ensure the safety and well-being of
local residents, and to meet the national standard for response times.
Speaker,
I've spoken on this on many occasions in the House of Assembly and it's
certainly a big issue in the Trepassey area. We've had people that have been
involved in fender-benders, or moose accidents, deciding if they're going to
take an ambulance or not. That shouldn't be the case.
I'm
going to say the last session we were in the House, I asked the minister a
question about the ambulances and he said it was based on the number of calls.
Well, this is not based on the number of calls, where they live. This is based
on geography and where you live. They are two hours from the nearest hospital.
It can't be based on the number of calls. They've got to use their head – just
listen to the minister speak – they've got to use their head in where they're
putting some of these ambulances and whatever else they're trying to do in the
health care to improve it.
That's
not improving it. It's making it worse. The people in the area have everything –
taken so much from them, they're so poisoned with the government it's
unbelievable. They lose their ambulance; they're looking at doctors, the fishery
collapse. I mean, how much more can this community take? They've got to be
looking at this for the people of the area's safety. It's nothing more than
safety. It's not the number of calls, it's not how much the ambulance operator
is going to make, it's about the people in the Trepassey and surrounding area –
Portugal Cove, St. Shotts, down as far as Renews.
They've
got to be looking at this. They've got to be looking at it and make some changes
to it. I mean, when that ambulance leave Trepassey, it's in a red alert as soon
as it leaves. It's two hours away. They're in a red alert. You know, God forbid
that something happens. A stroke victim only got about three or four hours to be
able to get a response, to get into the hospital to have something done, or a
pill received that they can hopefully reverse what happened to them.
But if
you are living in Cape Broyle, one gentleman, by the time they got into the
hospital, it is 3½ hours. That's only Cape Broyle; they're an hour away. These
are two hours away at the minimum. Just driving straight from Trepassey to St.
John's is a minimum of two hours. It should be looked at. It is not about
numbers; it is about geography.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that under
Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 4.
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.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 5.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, that the
Standing Orders Committee comprise the following Members: MHA for Carbonear -
Trinity - Bay de Verde; MHA for Mount Scio; MHA for Windsor Lake; MHA for
Harbour Main; MHA for Torngat Mountains;
And that
the Government Services Committee comprise the following Members: MHA for St.
George's - Humber; MHA for Mount Pearl North; MHA for Burin - Grand Bank; MHA
for Baie Verte - Green Bay; MHA for Ferryland; MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans; MHA for Labrador West.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper third reading of a bill, Bill 28, An Act To Amend Various
Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A Decision Or
Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal.
SPEAKER:
We need a mover and a
seconder, please.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board, that Bill 28 be now
read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
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.'
Motion carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend
Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A
Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal. (Bill 28)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time
and
it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An
Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A
Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)
SPEAKER: The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Bill 46, to move that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or
guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act.
SPEAKER:
Deputy Government House Leader, we need a
seconder to that motion.
L.
DEMPSTER:
Seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.
Resolution
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend
The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of
loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or
loans advanced to certain corporations.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
happy to be able to speak today to Bill 46, which is An Act to Amend the Loan
and Guarantee Act, 1957. This is certainly something we would call an evergreen
piece of legislation in that it's one that comes back before this House
generally every single year. Just looking at the wording of it alone, basically
what you're doing is striking out certain parts, talking about expiry dates of
2022 and substituting expiry dates of 2023.
Maybe
what I can do – and I don't plan on taking too much time, but I can talk about a
little bit of the history behind this Loan and Guarantee Act amendment, which is
specific to the Stephenville Airport Corporation. So what we are doing is
amending the act, and this in turn is allowing for the extension of a provincial
guarantee of a bank line of credit for the Stephenville Airport Corporation.
To go
back in time, 2005 the provincial government of the day provided a financial
guarantee for an operating line of credit for the Stephenville Airport
Corporation, and the guarantee at that time was $350,000 initially approved.
What you see over the next number of years is that every so often, it comes back
and that operating line of credit grows. In 2010, it was increased to $600,000,
and then in 2016 increased again to $900,000. The last approval in this House
was again at the $900,000 level, which guaranteed it up to March 31 of 2022,
just a few days ago. So today, we talk about extending the expiry date until
2023.
The
airport in Stephenville, as many people would know, and I'm one of the people in
this room and out there who has had the benefit of living in proximity to that
area, of travelling using that airport and being in that community. And it's
certainly been an integral part of that community for years and years now,
decades. For many years, between the Airport Corporation, the town itself, other
partners and other communities, they've been trying their best to work on some
of the sustainability and viability issues that the airport faces. There's no
surprise or no secret to anyone that the airport has had struggles in recent
years.
Certainly, when you look at the infrastructure itself, it has infrastructure
that you don't see in many airports of that size, when you look at that
fantastic runway, when you look at the building itself. I think one of the words
that we use for it is potential.
Back in
2005, the provincial government, at that time, saw the need to come on with
support and I'd like to say that the House, as far as I know, every year since
that, regardless of government, regardless of Opposition, it's been supported
and I'm almost – if it wasn't unanimous, I would be surprised. I'm not sure if
I've ever seen a vote against that in this House.
I will
point out, this being a money bill sometimes the debate does veer into other
territories and areas that may not be related to the Stephenville Airport
Corporation. I think some of what that says is that people aren't questioning
the area, people are not questioning the facility nor the need to do this; we
think this is the right thing to do.
Now I'll
point out that the viability issues that they have faced over the last number of
years, they did exist pre-COVID, obviously. The fact that the government has had
to come in and be basically a partner was there pre-COVID, but, obviously, the
pandemic, like every airport, certainly, in this province, nationally and
internationally, has been deeply, deeply affected.
Just
looking at the passenger movements, the disruption that you seen there, every
airport and airport corporation and the members, they've all had to take
different operational and planning approaches. They've all had to try to come up
with new means to stay viable.
I'm
proud of the fact that I think the department – I give a lot of credit to the
staff, perhaps, in my department; a lot of it goes to the Minister of Tourism.
His department has worked extremely hard to try to work with and partner with
airports to keep them going, because it's not just about the routes in and out,
there's a lot more to it than that. It's about branding experience. It's about
marketing.
Again,
the credit, I think, goes mainly to Tourism and their minister. Although, I will
point out, I'm lucky that the team in my department, many used to be in that
department prior to, they work really well together. So I have a lot of great
people in the department who've worked tremendously and through difficult times.
Again, I would point out, a lot of this has been difficult due to the fact that
some of the conditions we face are outside our own jurisdiction. When we talk
about federal travel bans, when we talk about other countries, everybody was
going through this struggle.
So,
again, we need to continue to work with them. Now is not the time to take away
support from Stephenville Airport Corporation. When I talk about transportation,
whether it's Marine Atlantic, whether it's our airports, everybody is trying to
basically factor in what we hope is going to be a great year of renewed travel
and opportunity. We need to get back to pre-travel levels.
This is
why this loan guarantee is necessary and I think it also demonstrates the
governments support, especially to a rural airport. It's just with their ongoing
efforts. I will point out that we've worked with them and they've recently had a
contract with a – I think it's called the Winnipeg Airport group who've come in
and done – they've got a lot of experience in rural airport management.
So,
again, what I would say is that we'll continue to work with the Airport
Corporation, the town and partners. I think there's a vested, I would say,
bi-partisan effort here.
I see
I'm getting some heckles from the other side there but I will say it's coming
from the independent Members there. But I'm pretty sure they're supportive of
this operation as well.
I do
think this is a bi-partisan effort, because I look around, and just looking at
the West Coast, we've got Members of the independent, of PC, of Liberal – this
is not a political issue. This is a viability issue that affects us all.
So what
I will say is we need to continue to work together to support the airport; we're
happy today to bring this in to support that.
On that
note, I will continue to listen to the Members opposite in their commentary on
this. Hopefully, we can look forward to what is a better year, not just for
Stephenville but for all airports in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
It's
great to be able to stand and support this resolution. It's one thing to point
out that this loan guarantee doesn't actually mean that the province is
providing the airport in Stephenville or the airport authority with $900,000 on
an annual basis. It's simply a loan guarantee. The airport authority has a line
of credit with the bank and it is that line of credit that is secured by the
government.
So
unlike other places, this is not direct funding to the Stephenville Airport. The
Stephenville Airport, like other airports in this province, has struggled
especially in the last two years in relation to COVID with it just maintaining
its operation and keeping the doors open. It has not had the benefit of the
funding that was recently announced by government for other airports. I know
that the airport authority has written the Premier looking for some additional
supports for that.
The
minister is absolutely right, government did step up and help the airport
authority when it came to securing a contract with the Winnipeg Airport
corporation who have been quite successful in the revitalization of other
airports in the country and have been working hard on the Stephenville Airport.
One of
the other things that people need to understand, not only is this a critical
piece of infrastructure but it's critical for a lot of major airlines. Yes, they
do not land at Stephenville, but Stephenville is often designated as an
alternate route, as an alternate landing site. And if you do not have that
alternate landing site available, it has the potential to impact on the routes
that planes will fly out of. So that's an important piece.
It's
also critically important from the air ambulance program. We're in Stephenville,
centrally located on the west side of Corner Brook. It takes in a large area.
There are over 16,000 people in our geographic region. When they have a
requirement to travel by air ambulance, the fact that if that airport is not
there and not maintained – it's not just about being there, it has to be
maintained, because if that air ambulance can't land in Stephenville, then the
alternate is Deer Lake. That means another significant ride in the back of a
road ambulance for people on the West Coast. So it's critically important that
that airport be maintained.
The
other piece that needs to be looked at is – and I urge government to take a real
hard look at this – as our airports try to recover from COVID, start looking at
how much money does the government spend on air travel now. Whether it's members
of core government, members of government agencies, members of Crown
corporations or other corporations, how much is that bill? Also, in doing that,
start to look at the idea of maybe it's time – and it'll come out in the Health
Accord recommendations about how we address medical transportation.
It is
one of the big issues that the Health Accord has identified: medical
transportation. It's not only about the emergency transportation. It should also
be about routine transportation or the potential for routine air transportation.
There is an opportunity, an investment to look at the potential to have routine
air ambulance available in different airports, whether it's St. Anthony, whether
it's Stephenville, whether it's Gander, whether it's Deer Lake, landing, picking
up people who have to travel because we do not have the access to the speciality
services that may only be available in the City of St. John's.
So there
is a potential, I would argue, that if you were to look at the cost of
government and the number of seats they currently buy on commercial aircraft in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe there's a plan for a standing
offer agreement that would see regularly scheduled flight once a day from
strategic airports, including Stephenville, that would transport, not only
government employees or people travelling on a government dime but also people
who may need to travel because of medical appointments. I think that's something
that we have to start looking at. Stephenville will play an integral part of
that, but it comes down to the ability to maintain their operations, to be able
to turn around and say that the airport is open for business.
Don't
get me wrong, the airport is open for business. As a matter of fact, there's
currently a negotiation between a private buyer and the Airport Corporation on
the airport in Stephenville. But it's going to be critical that that airport be
maintained and be part of the solution, because there are so many people, as I
have suggested, that travel for different reasons.
I had an
incident where a young man who had significant burns on his body but he wasn't
considered life threatening. Because he wasn't considered life threatening, he
wasn't able to access the air ambulance emergency plane, but he needed to come
to St. John's.
They put
that individual on a road ambulance for nine hours with a nurse providing
morphine along the way for the pain. Understandably, they didn't meet the
criteria of an emergency, but that in itself is just one example of what routine
air ambulance might look like or what regularly scheduled services might be.
I know
that for all of us that live in rural Newfoundland, we get lots of calls around
medical transportation. In Labrador, it's a constant issue. The cost of
transportation from Labrador, down to the city. The cost of transportation from
Deer Lake – when I fly from Deer Lake to St. John's on government's dime to
attend the House of Assembly, I'm looking at a $1,000 bill. Most people do not
have that option. They cannot afford that.
I think
it's clear that as we look and talk about the Health Accord and talk about
transportation that the Stephenville Airport becomes a critical part of
transportation to serve the entire West Coast. There is absolutely no reason for
anyone west of Corner Brook to have to travel to Deer Lake to catch a medical
flight to St. John's. I think there's an opportunity for government to take a
look at it, to take a review and to talk about how we can service that airport
and others.
I would
also like government to make sure that as this potential sale unfolds that
government is there to offer the assistance to the Airport Corporation, to help
them right now. It is the taxpayers of Stephenville who have kept the airport
open for the last number of years. It has been their tax dollars, contributed by
the town council of Stephenville that have actually kept that airport running.
Right now, that airport needs help in the short term. They have flights booked
for the summer with one carrier but they need help. They need to have those
funds.
This
bill today guarantees that line of credit, but it doesn't provide the operation
dollars that they could use help with right now. So I ask government, again, to
reconsider the monies that you have already allocated to other airports – good
that was done, but I think Stephenville could also use a little bit of help
right now. Of course, as we move, hopefully, to a sale and a sale that will
eventually result in more jobs at the airport would always be welcome.
But,
right now, I think part of the government's strategy has to be about routine air
ambulance. In doing that, there is a potential to have daily flights from
Stephenville, Deer Lake, St. Anthony and Gander into St. John's. You could
structure that any way you want. You could do standing offer agreements with any
of the existing airlines or open it up to others but there is a way to make it
happen.
It is
not about all new dollars to make it happen. They are spending the money right
now. The number of people, as I said, who travel on the government dime is
significant. So let's see if we can't find a way to make it work a little
better, a little more efficient.
I thank
you for the opportunity to speak here today. Obviously, I'm going to support
this resolution, but I look forward to further discussions and hope that, at the
end of the day, government can meet with the airport authority and come up with
a short-term solution to help them out as they negotiate and finalize a deal for
the airport.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. George's - Humber.
S. REID:
Thank you, Chair.
It's
great to have an opportunity to speak on this motion, Bill 46, related to the
extension of the loan guarantee for the Stephenville Airport.
The
Stephenville Airport is not located in my district, of course. It's in the
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port's district. But it's very close on the
border and a lot of people in my district, particularly in the southern part of
my district, use that airport. It is a very important facility for the whole
West Coast and especially the Southwest Coast. So I wanted to say a few words in
support of this motion as well.
I just
want to talk about a few things here. I want to talk a little bit about the
history of the airport. Some people may not be aware of the history of the
airport. I want to talk about the current situation at the airport and I want to
talk a little bit about the future of the airport and my hopes for the future
and my expectations of what might happen.
The
Stephenville Airport is a former American base, Ernest Harmon base. It had its
origin during the Second World War when there was an agreement between the
United States and Britain. Of course, Newfoundland was governed by Commission of
Government at that time and there was an agreement between Britain and the US in
exchange for a certain number of destroyers being given to Britain, that Britain
would allow the United States to have a number of bases here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. One of those was the Ernest Harmon Air Force Base in Stephenville,
which started in 1941.
It
operated as a base, one of the biggest in the world at the time. Just to give
you a sense of how large this base is, it used to be an alternative site for the
landing of the space shuttle; one of the largest air force bases in the world.
It had substantial importance as a military base before it became a commercial
airport.
The base
closed in 1966. By then, we had become a part of Canada and the base was
reverted to the Canadian government and then to the Newfoundland government. The
base reverted to the provincial government and operated as a commercial airport
since then.
It's had
a bit of trouble in terms of keeping going and keeping the place operating. Over
this last period of time, the government and, particularly, the Town of
Stephenville and others in the area have intervened to support the airport, to
keep it going and to look for other opportunities.
The
provincial government has done some things to support the airport as well. For
example, they rent some space at the airport. The Marine Institute rents some
space there where they have the SERT Centre. Some of these things are designed
to support the Stephenville Airport and to keep it operating at this time.
This
loan guarantee is another thing that is being done by the provincial government
to help the airport to bridge it to a time when it can be more self-sustaining.
I think the airport, over the last few years, has been a commercial airport;
some traffic coming in. It's been a training site. It's been a fuelling station.
As the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port says, it's been an important part
of the medical transportation in the province for the past number of years.
More
recently, we've seen some potential purchasers of the airport come forward and I
think this is a very positive development. I'm still hopeful. I've seen some of
the coverage in the media and things like that, but I'm still very hopeful that
this memorandum of understanding will result in a more positive future for the
airport.
I am a
big believer in the private sector and what they can do to unlock opportunities
that exist in a facility like the Stephenville Airport, especially where it's in
conjunction with the port there and the possibility of industrial activity that
could be generated from such a combination of assets in the same area.
So I am
very enthused about this. I'm still hopeful, still optimistic about the
Stephenville Airport. I think there's a lot of potential here in terms of
training, search and rescue, industrial developments, tourism, as well, in the
area. I think some people in the area have very good ideas about developing the
tourism potential in the area and I think it's not a situation where we have to
compete. I think there's a complementary aspect of having other airports and the
Stephenville Airport, in terms of alternative landing sites, but also in terms
of if people want to fly into one airport, travel, do some hiking in Bay St.
George area and then exit through the Stephenville Airport, for example, I think
that's a very good benefit that might be present there.
In
conclusion, I want to encourage everyone to support this motion. It's very
important, it's very warranted and I think it's a motion that will allow us to
continue to get to a brighter future for the Stephenville Airport. That's my
hope. That's my optimistic view of where we should be going in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
It is
certainly a pleasure to stand in this House and represent the District of
Ferryland. I'll start off by saying we will be supporting the resolution for
sure. This bill will amend the Schedule to the act as it relates to the loan
guarantee in place supporting Stephenville Airport. This bill also ratifies the
decision by Cabinet to extend the guarantee to March 31, 2023.
Now,
this legislation also allows Stephenville Airport to continue to be operational,
as good as can possibly be in these times. So it's something that should be
noted, that the government is not loaning the money to the airport, but is
guaranteeing their loans, which they have on the books. Should the guarantee be
called, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would have the expenditures
on their behalf. So it's something that's certainly needed right now and to
continue with it.
I'd like
to touch on a couple of other issues in my district. First of all, I'd like to
start off – I'm sure the Member for Bonavista is listening now – and I'll speak
on the seal issue in Newfoundland and Labrador.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member to stay relevant to the bill. I mean, there are recommendations
that came in here from the Standing Orders Committee that unanimously agreed to
us staying relevant to the bill. I will give as much leeway as I can, but I ask
you to stay relevant to the bill.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Well, this is about costs and
the cost of living and this is what I'm getting at. So it's costs for businesses
and it's something that relates to all people. Loans certainly relate to people,
and this is where it's tied to. It's tied to the people and the loans in this
province. We have people here that are struggling, really struggling to survive
and we really have to look at this from a perspective of we are looking at
backing these loans, we've got people out here that really need help. We really
need help.
You're
talking about we're going to back up this loan – and we certainly support it –
but the people in the province, for the cost of living, they need help. We're
out here backing this, and we certainly support it, like I said, but we need to
be able to help the people in this province.
I got a
text the other day from a gentleman that ordered 500 litres of fuel – $1100
dollars. And there was $350 worth of taxes on it. Yes, I know we can't take it
off, but we've got to start looking at it at some point in time to help the
people in this province. We can't just let that go. That just can't happen. It's
tied to the cost of living. People are going to lose their businesses. We hope
they don't. I mean, this is what we're here to represent are to the people in
this province, and we're passing a resolution on this today, to support it.
But we
need to support the people in the province. We really do. That's what we're
tying it to here now, and that's certainly relevant as far as I'm concerned,
Chair. That's why we're elected here, to represent the people in the province.
We take calls and everybody here – no one's (inaudible) – no one's messaging
from that.
There
are 40 MHAs here and everybody gets calls on this. We're not just over on this
side getting calls. We know you're getting calls as well, and it's relevant. I
mean, people are struggling to pay their fuel bills. They really are struggling
to pay their fuel bills. And little do they know in September – we passed a bill
in September that there's going to be a sugar tax come out. I'm going to say it
could be, on a two-litre of drink, 40 cents or 50 cents.
That's
not even hit the people yet. I know that we voted on it last year; we didn't
forget about it. We sat here and debated it, and now it's going to go ahead. And
now when you talk about the cost of living and signed loan guarantees, these
people won't have loans to sign, soon, if they don't get some help and reduce
some taxes for the people in this province. People really need the help.
So we've
got it passed. It's going to come in, the sugar tax. The government should be
looking at that and (inaudible) – so now, we're making these people go back and
buy stuff that's not healthy for them. You know, that's what you're trying to
stop, but they can't afford the other side of it. So now, you're forcing them
into a spot that they're even worse off than they were when they started.
This was
forced right down to the retailers that are doing it. You hear it on the radio,
POS systems; they've got big upgrades that have to happen. When that upgrade
comes up for $10,000 that affects the person on the other side. They've got to
pay more. Look at fuel costs, if it's $1,500 – I heard somebody say, and I don't
know if it's exact, but I heard somebody say $1,500 for fuel to go across the
Island or go wherever they're going. Now it's $3,000. So that three, you think
they're going to take that off their bottom line? That's coming to us, and
everybody around us. That's where we've got to be looking, and that's what we've
got to get at.
People
put us here to represent them and this is what we should be doing to fight for
them. It should not be missed. You've got to listen to the people. We've all
gotten calls – no one can sit across this House or on this side and say that we
haven't gotten a call on this because we have. So to tie it into that, that is
loan guarantees. These people need the help. They really need the help.
I get so
many stories and so many calls and they spoke on driving to the hospital from
Trepassey. I'm going to say that's $40. So just for three months that's doubled
to $80. Now, they're going to wait home, they're going to be too sick, they can
go on an ambulance, if there's one there. So it's a cost of living.
When I
ran last year – we started in January and finished in March – a lady gave me a
sheet of paper with all of her expenses and when she finished – that was last
year in March when we finished, I'm going to say I got that in February when I
knocked on her door. So she had $34 left last year in February and she's on, I'm
going to say, old age pension, what has she got this year? If she had $34 left
last year, what have she got now that's going to help her pay her bills? What
have she got?
She
didn't get an increase, she certainly didn't. So we look at all of this, there
are people that I don't know how they're going to survive. I get that. We're
over here and we all got stressful jobs, there's no doubt, and to hear those
calls, you hate to hear those calls, but we've got to do something to help them.
Let's do something to help them. Let's reduce some tax of some sort; come up
with the ideas. We'll sit down and help you. There's got to be something we can
do to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to afford this.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
This is relative. Yes, it is
relative. It's the cost of living. We signed a loan guarantee. We got people
that can't afford to live. So to me it is, I don't know about you guys but to me
it is.
Anyway,
I'll leave it at that. I had my session on that.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, always
a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the House.
Mr.
Chair, first of all, just for the record and for
Hansard, I'll support Bill 46. Of
course, we know that's a loan guarantee for the Stephenville Airport. I've been
in the House of Assembly – this is my 11th year and this is important,
obviously, to the airport, to the people of Stephenville, important to the West
Coast, but I almost view it as routine business now because it's sort of
something that we do every year and we do so for good reason, Mr. Chair.
I've got
to say it's not something I hear a lot about here on this end of her, but I've
had a couple of people in the past from around here who said why are we
supporting the Stephenville Airport and so on, if they can't make it on their
own then let them falter and so on. But I always come back to the fact that, for
me, it's very much all about the Mount Pearl area and stuff, that's kind of what
I live for and whatever, but we're all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it's
not just about St. John's. It's not just about the metro area. It's not just
about the Avalon Peninsula, albeit we do have probably half the population on
this end of the province. But we also have to be mindful that there are other
people in this province, other districts, other taxpayers and we all have to do
our part to look out for each other as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I do
want to say that as – I'll say – an east coast MHA, that while this does not
have any impact on my district and my region, I think it's important we all see
the bigger picture that we're all in this together. I support it from that
perspective.
Mr.
Chair, I also realize that this airport has had its struggles over the years and
certainly, it's been perhaps that much worse because of what happened with
COVID-19, which is not something unique to Stephenville. It certainly impacted
the entire province, but I'm also very positive, I guess, on the prospects.
I don't
have any details on this proposal that was put forward about building drones and
so on in Stephenville. It sounds very exciting. I don't know how realistic it
is, how close we are to it happening. The Members from the area, I'm sure, are
better versed in it than I, but it certainly sounds like a very exciting
opportunity to provide a lot of opportunity, a lot of jobs and benefit the
region.
If it
benefits the West Coast, it benefits the entire province. That's something we
also must be very cognizant of. It's not just about economic development in our
own backyards, because revenues derived from whether it be the West Coast or
Central Newfoundland or Labrador, as we know, look at the benefits we reap from
Labrador in terms of the mining and so on, we all enjoy those benefits here on
the Island. Conversely, Labrador benefits from our oil industry and so on that's
primarily here on the East Coast. So it all ties together.
Mr.
Chair, also, I think it's important, I just want to make this tie here that
we're talking about assets. We're talking about the Stephenville Airport being
an asset to the province. I think one thing that we have had here, as it relates
to this particular asset, as it relates to Stephenville Airport, is I think we
have had openness and we have had transparency and, generally speaking, we see
the financials or we can see the financials. Certainly, it's available to us
about what is occurring with the Stephenville Airport, what the plans are and so
on.
But,
unfortunately, I'm going to make this connection here, we have the report that
just came out that the government received, the Rothschild's, also talking about
our assets, just like the Stephenville Airport being an asset. The NLC is an
asset to Newfoundland and Labrador; our oil shares are assets to Newfoundland
and Labrador. We have registries, we have other landholdings, we have government
facilities and so on, which are all assets. No different than the Stephenville
Airport is an asset.
But now
we have this report that we paid $5 million for. Apparently, there is nobody in
Newfoundland and Labrador smart enough at Memorial University or in the
Confederation Building smart enough to do it. But we paid the Rothschild's $5
million, US I believe, and now government has the report, but are we going to
see the details like we're seeing with the Stephenville Airport? Are we going to
be open and transparent with those assets like we are with the Stephenville
Airport?
No,
we're not. The governments going to keep all that information to themselves and
for some reason we're not going to have the opportunity to see the report,
understand the numbers, like we do with the Stephenville Airport, make informed
decisions in the House, like we do for the Stephenville Airport. We're not going
to have the ability to do that because government is going to hide all that
information.
I would
say to the government that I certainly hope, unlike what has happened with the
Stephenville Airport where everything is before the House and we are having an
opportunity to debate, we are having an opportunity to hear all this
information, I certainly hope that we're going to get that same opportunity when
it come to those other assets. Because I can tell you what, I will not, as one
Member, be supporting the sale of any provincial assets unless we know what all
the numbers are, until there is public input and until we have an opportunity to
debate it here in this House of Assembly.
The just
trust me thing doesn't work. I have been down that road; I've been down that
road with the $6-million man. I've been down that road with Nalcor: Trust me,
everything is under control, b'ys, trust the numbers, trust everything. We know
where everything went; we know what happened. We had an inquiry that we paid
quite a lot of money for to get to the bottom of that one and it is something
that I have to wear for the rest of my life which I'm not proud of, I would say,
although I did it in good faith. I'm not going down this road when it comes to
our provincial assets – not doing it.
So I
certainly hope that if the government thinks – if that's your plan is to take
this report, keep all the information to yourself and start selling stuff off,
don't go looking for my support. Now, you might not need it; you're the
government and I guess you can do what you want. I guess there are going to be
some legislative changes required for some of it, and I won't be voting for it;
I'll vote against it on principle. You still have your majority; you'll get your
way. But I won't be supporting it.
I would
hope in the spirit of openness, transparency, collegiality, working together
that just in the same way that we are being open and transparent about the
Stephenville Airport, an asset of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that
we will apply that same standard when it comes to all of our provincial assets,
and that we will have an open and free debate in this House of Assembly on each
and every asset individually. Not just one general debate on the sale of assets
– individually. A debate on the NLC, a debate on our oil shares, a debate on our
registries and anything else that you're planning or potentially planning on
selling. We'll have an open debate in the House of Assembly, the same as we're
having right here on the Stephenville Airport. We will have all the data, all
the facts and figures, all the numbers.
I
couldn't care less about your commercial sensitivity excuse, because that's all
it is; it is an excuse. We need to have the information, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador need to have the information so we can all make an
informed decision. The days of “trust me” are over – and that's got nothing
against anyone on that side. But as I said, I've been there, been burnt. Never,
ever again, it will never happen – not to me, I can tell you that.
So I
certainly hope that that will be the plan. If it's not, you can count me out. I
can tell you that.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Chair.
I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. I will be
relevant to the legislation itself; I think that that's what's required in the
House.
I will
say that Bill 46 – this is the bill we're debating today – is again an extension
of a loan guarantee that has been in place with the provincial government since
2005. For the interest of the House, it's the only airport in the province that
the province actually has a loan guarantee with. It started in 2005. In 2016, it
was increased to $900,000. I think it was a $350,000 start and now it's up to
$900,000. It's basically a provincial guarantee of a bank line of credit for the
Stephenville Airport Corporation, and we're looking now in this legislation to
extend it to March 31, 2023.
As
you're hearing in the House, acceptance of the bill as is put forward to extend
that loan guarantee, I think it's going to be important. The provincial
government is demonstrating its commitment to a rural airport, an important
rural airport by assisting with ongoing efforts to ensure its financial
sustainability. I think we've all heard in the media and extensive media
coverage that the Stephenville Airport Authority is negotiating with a private
enterprise to see the acquisition of the airport for the business opportunities
that the company may be able to bring to the Stephenville Airport. It's
including the manufacturing of drones, I think, I read in the newspaper or in
the news media.
I think
that process is still ongoing. I understand the government has no real role in
that. It's between the Stephenville Airport Authority and this corporation, but
I understand that they are still looking at the business proposal.
I will
say, Chair, that this is an integral part of the Stephenville-Bay St. George
region for decades. It's an important part of access to service, and we all know
how impacted the industry was. The tourism industry, the airline industry, the
airports itself have been tremendously impacted by COVID. We're looking at,
hopefully, with the Come Home Year celebrations that are coming up, a resurgence
in visitation to the province and extended use, of course, of airports because
of that. As I said, the Stephenville Airport Corporation is looking at and
identifying new opportunities.
I'll
also say that last year I know that the Stephenville Airport Authority did
contract, I think it was the Winnipeg Airport Services and the provincial
government assisted them in those endeavours and contributed about $215,000 or
$214,000 that was approved through the Industry, Energy and Technology
Department for the town and for the Stephenville Airport Corporation project
that they were looking to do to help with their operations. So I think
government has proven and shown its commitment to the airport and commitment to
the airport and commitment to the growth and development of the Stephenville
Airport.
With
that, Mr. Chair, I will say that I am hopeful that the Legislature approves this
legislation so that the Stephenville Airport Authority can continue its work and
can continue toward sustainability and their endeavours with a private
corporation on the acquisition of the airport assets.
If that
does occur, Chair, I will say that we fully expect that the loan guarantee will
be no longer required and that that would be paid in full. So thank you very
much for this opportunity to support this legislation, important as it is, and
wishing Stephenville Airport Corporation and the volunteers that are giving so
much time and attention to this activity, the very best, as government continues
to support its operations.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to stand and, of course, I'm going to support this bill that's here today.
I heard a lot of speakers speaking about it today. I heard the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port speaking. I think it's the longest runway in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; it's used for a lot of international
flights – 4,200 feet? I think it's the longest runway in the province. It has a
long history as the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Gander? Gander is longer,
okay.
But it
has it and it used to be used for a lot of flights that couldn't make it to
other flights and was diverted to Stephenville. And this is something that
started in 2005, I was mentioning earlier. Stephenville is always trying to push
ahead, with the airport.
We
forget some of the fish hatcheries that are in Stephenville. We forget about the
big port that's in Stephenville; that's a big asset. We forget about the
limestone. There are a lot of businesses in Stephenville; people coming back and
forth from around the world in Stephenville. So now, we have to find some way to
incorporate that with the airport itself.
Stephenville is trying. I've been knocking around Stephenville now for the last
50 years. Worked out there for a number of years. If anybody ever thinks that
Mayor Tom Rosand and the council is just going to roll over and say we'll let
Stephenville just dwindle away, they just don't know the Stephenville people,
the Port au Port people, and the Bay St. George area also.
They
have a lot of major files that they're working on right now. The airport is one
of those major files that they are working on. I fully support the Town of
Stephenville. I fully support this loan guarantee with the extension. It is a
great idea to have it extended to 2023; every year having to come back wondering
are we going to get it.
As it
was mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, this is no money given to Stephenville. This
is just a loan guarantee for a line of credit that they will be using to keep
the airport. The airport in Stephenville has done a great service to the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the years. We've got to remember that
also. Kudos to the town council and Mayor Rose for all the work that they're
doing trying to make Stephenville prosperous.
I will
be supporting this, Mr. Chair, and I will be supporting the Town of
Stephenville. I know I was speaking to the Member for Stephenville - Port au
Port on some initiatives that are happening out there. He's very much active in
a lot of the files that are in the Stephenville area. There is a bright future
for Stephenville and the whole Port au Port area, the whole Bay St. George area.
Mr.
Chair, I'm just going to bring something up that was brought up earlier so I am
assuming I can have it out, as this is a money bill. You talk about how
disclosure needs to be when talking about the Rothschild, that was brought up
earlier about disclosure and this is a prime example of disclosure. I heard the
Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board talk today – we know
that Muskrat Falls – what happened before disclosure.
I just
want to say to the minister, I was the one who led the filibuster for five days
in this House. So please just don't take it and say because something happened
10 years ago – nine or10 years ago – that all of a sudden all these Members who
weren't even here are just tarred with a brush, including myself.
To me
that's disrespectful. For all of a sudden to look over and say you know what
happened before. There might have been one or two that was here – might have
been. I know I was the one that helped lead the filibuster; five days, night and
day; eight-hour shifts in this House.
So I say
to the minister, when you say look what happened before, I'll just say to the
minister – and I'll say it very openly – you've seen what happened before when
most of those Members weren't even here, so are you going to go down the same
path? Are you going to go down the same path if there was a mistake that's going
to be detrimental to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and say we did what you guys did? If
you really mean what you're saying look at what happened; you should produce the
report so it don't happen again.
I'll say
to the minister, every time you want to tarnish everybody over on this side with
a brush about making a bad deal for Muskrat Falls, because this is a money bill,
Mr. Chair, and I'm allowed to speak about the money bill.
CHAIR:
I'm going to ask the Member
to stay relevant to the bill.
E. JOYCE:
I will, Mr. Chair, I'll close
on this part. If you're going to do what other people did that weren't in this
House of Assembly, you're going to make the same mistakes and who is going to
suffer is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So please stop tarnishing
myself and, I would say, 99 per cent of the people. I think probably only one,
maybe two, were here that voted on that and keep saying: look what you did,
you're not responsible enough to look at the report is false. It's just false.
So let's start, it's a provincial asset, the same as the Stephenville Airport.
I say to
Mayor Tom Rose and I say to the whole town council and all the economic groups
in Stephenville: Keep up the good work, keep fighting. I know you have a lot of
files behind you. I know there's a lot of support in government for
Stephenville. I know there's a lot of support on this side also for Stephenville
and the area.
I say to
the minister, it's great to have it until 2023 so that we don't have to come
back in the House every year and they'll be wondering if it's going to happen
again, if it's going to move on again. Now we know up to 2023 that it's done,
that if we need to change this again for some reason, it's a great move.
I will
be supporting this motion.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
want to clarify, I guess, and probably bring it down a shade for our listeners.
There is no money being spent here. This is a loan guarantee, no different, like
I said, from a line of credit or anything like that. It's no different than
being a co-signer on a car or anything like that. We're the co-signer and if the
principal that owns the loan doesn't pay, then we take responsibility to help
get to the next level.
Just so
that our viewers understand, this bill is not about giving any money. It's about
helping the airport authority have the ability to continue with their business
and to have that service available in the Stephenville area, which is very
important to the area, there's no doubt about that, as my esteemed colleague
from Stephenville - Port au Port has alluded to.
With a
sale pending, the thing is, this might be the last time – hopefully, maybe it is
– that we have to pass this legislation because once there's a sale in place,
there will be no need for that loan guarantee to the airport authority because
it's a private sale and it will be a private company.
Like I
said, from what I've heard a lot of exciting things are going to happen there
with producing drones and producing other technologies for the aerospace
engineering ability.
Like I
said, this is like us being a co-signer on a loan. We are in difficult times,
but the airport authority has been able to keep up with their payments so we
haven't had to step in at any point really in the many years that this has been
going on to make payments for them.
There
are no arrears; therefore, we haven't taken any money out of our provincial
coffers to help out the airport or anything like that. But the good news on the
horizon I think is the sale and, hopefully, Mr. Dymond and his group find solace
in the fact that we want to support them once the sale goes through. But, right
now, we want to help the airport authority to keep operations in the
Stephenville area, that is very important to our province and keep this great
asset going.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
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 Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.” (Bill 46)
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:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacted clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Loan And
Guarantee Act, 1957.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 46
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 Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 46 carried.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 46.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
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 reports 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 effect to the same.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Health and Community Services, 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.'
Motion
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 further to amend
The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of
loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or
loans advanced to certain corporations.”
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, 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.'
Motion
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 further to amend
The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of
loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or
loans advanced to certain corporations.”
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 46, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 46, and the
said bill be 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.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957,” carried.
(Bill 46)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 46)
On
motion, Bill 46 read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, that Bill 46 now be read a
second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
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.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 46)
On
motion, Bill 46 read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 46 be now read a third
time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 46 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.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 46)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you for your patience
with me, Speaker, on the resolution.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of a bill, Bill 48, An Act To
Amend The Financial Administration Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North, that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.”
(Bill 48)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today in
this hon. House I want to bring forward amendments to the
Financial Administration Act to allow diversification of investments
made in Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund and, in that same
amendments, to incorporate some gender-neutral language.
Allow me
first to say that a sinking fund is basically a fund set up for the purposes of
retiring public debt of the province at maturity. The sinking funds are managed
by the Department of Finance and is overseen by a board of trustees.
The
intention of the amendment is to strengthen Treasury management capacity and
increase the long-term rate of return. This is important, Speaker, as we move
towards lowering our cost of borrowing and strengthening overall our financial
management.
The goal
here is to have a positive impact on the province's financial position through
increased income from investments. This bill supports the implementation of a
modern Treasury management framework. The
Financial Administration Act governs all public debt of the province,
including the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund.
Now, as
I said, the sinking fund is basically a fund established for the purpose of
retiring public debt in the province at maturity. The fund is managed by, as I
said, the Department of Finance and is overseen by its board of trustees. This
amendment permits the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund to
evaluate a number of investment opportunities.
These
include Canada Mortgage Bonds. Now, these are fully guaranteed by Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so it's allowing to now look for these sinking
funds to not just be in bonds, but to be in Canada Mortgage Bonds; Canadian
municipal bonds, which tend to have a strong credit rating, and also agencies
believe that higher levels of government will protect these bonds from default;
highly rated corporate bonds, which are limited to an investment grade credit
rating of a BBB, and have average credit worthiness with adequate protection
parameters; highly rated shares of publicly traded companies, which are limited
to the shares of Canadian corporations on the S&P/TSX 60 index and the United
States corporations on the S&P 500 index. These are our blue-chip stocks and
these are large, well-established financially sound corporations and companies
that have operated for many years and have dependable earnings.
Speaker,
generally a diversified portfolio of investments decreases the overall portfolio
risk. Current legislation states that money in the sinking fund may be invested
in only bonds, debentures and other securities. This is yielding a very low rate
of return. What we're trying to achieve here, Speaker, is to increase that rate
of return so that, as we have accumulated, the sinking funds get a better rate
of return and then pay it down on debt.
In an
effort to modernize government's finances and improve returns, it's proposed
that investments take a diversified approach. This will increase investment
revenues and decrease cash flow requirements for debt retirements.
These
amendments would not impact the current bond portfolio, which would remain in
tact. The bill amends the subsection to state investments may – quote – at the
direction of the board, be invested in securities. The board here that's being
referenced is the Treasury Board.
Treasury
Board is comprised of a number of senior Cabinet ministers that oversee the
Treasury Board function within the province. That Treasury Board will now
develop an investment policy, and that's currently in development, Speaker. They
would develop an investment policy and the improvement of the investment policy
would be done by Treasury Board, because, of course, it is administrative in
function and will be sought before the amendments of the
Financial Administration Act are
proclaimed.
The
investment policy will be a comprehensive framework of investment selection
criteria – very important. I've seen it in other jurisdictions and, of course,
in other boards of directors that I've sat on. It has evaluation methodology,
purchase practices and disposition procedures and it will include target asset
allocations, investment criteria and monitoring activity.
British
Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec, all have enabling legislation that
allows sinking funds to hold equity investments.
As I
mentioned earlier, amendments are being made to the
Financial Administration Act to incorporate, as well, some
gender-neutral language. We have to modernize and improve our legislation on an
ongoing basis to ensure that we're following best practice, as well as to ensure
fairness and equity. The use of gender-neutral language reflects the diversity
of our province and will stand the test of time.
So to
conclude, the amendments to the Financial
Administration Act are being introduced today to allow us to diversify
investments made with the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Funds and
incorporate some gender-neutral language.
This is
really part of a larger, strategic plan for overall responsible financial
management. You've seen some other pieces of that strategic plan tabled here in
the House for debate, Speaker, including balanced budget legislation, including
future fund. This is all part of this modernization and improvement of how we're
doing financial management.
With
that, I will wait for questions, but I will say I think this is a responsible
action on behalf of government to improve and increase the ability to earn
interest on the sinking funds that we hold, of course, under the watchful eye of
Treasury Board and its investment policy as well as the Board of Trustees.
I thank
you, Speaker, for the opportunity to table this legislation here today.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
you for the opportunity to speak on this particular act and its amendment. The
minister has outlined, in quite detail, some of the changes that are being made.
Some, as the minister has alluded to, are housekeeping that change the language
in the particular act, but others will allow, as the minister has suggested, an
opportunity for our Financial
Administration Act to come into the 21st century in terms of how we invest
our money as a province; something that we're not going to disagree with. We
think it's a move in the right direction.
S. COADY:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
However – there is always a
however, and I hate to say it and I don't want to be disrespectful and I
certainly want to be relevant, but I've sat here in my short time in Opposition
debating bills and acts that we all thought were going to produce one impact or
one effect that turned out, when the regulations were done or the policies were
done, had a lot different outcome than what we all had thought was going to
happen. There was some discussion today, already, about one of those pieces of
legislation that was brought up by questions from my colleagues and others here
in the House.
So I
have some concerns around – I understand it's an administrative decision, I
understand that the development of policy may be an administrative decision and
that Treasury Board will develop policy and a number of ministers who sit on
Treasury Board will oversee the development of that policy. I would have liked
to be sitting here today reviewing and understanding exactly what that policy
is. Instead, I'm here today to say, yes, I support the direction, but, on the
other hand, I have no idea as to what the policy will look like, nor am I
expected to know. It's simply an administrative function, but we're talking
about investing on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So it
may or may not be the way things are traditionally done when you bring in
legislation, but I don't think that makes it right. I think that if we want to
be open and transparent, it would be nice that, yes, this is the right thing to
do, this makes all the sense in the world to do. But, in doing so, it would've
been nice if the policy piece had been done and ready so as we sat here today
we'd be talking about a complete package. But we're not talking about a complete
package; we're simply talking about changes to legislation.
Some may
argue that the legislation changes have to come first, and they may be right,
but I would've thought that somehow or other there would've been some reflection
of what those policies are going to look like. There's lots of protection in
here for the province the way minister has outlined it in terms of what they can
invest in and the type of bonds. Again, when it comes time to question, maybe we
can ask some questions about limits and how much and what risk and all of those
things that can be asked about when we get to the question piece.
But
that's the only piece I see missing here. This is a move, I think, that will
certainly benefit the taxpayers of the province in terms of its investment
strategy, but I would've liked to at least understand exactly what the policy
piece might look like.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
one of those pieces of legislation that is very important but, generally,
people's eyes glaze over. It's just as exciting as watching paint dry. Having
said that, Speaker, it is important because, as the speaker just prior to me
said, it's bringing the province into the 21st century in terms of investment
options. Other jurisdictions in Canada are already doing what is proposed in
this bill. It is to develop options and investment policy for the province that
will allow the province to generate more revenue than currently on the
province's sinking funds. Bonds and debentures are currently the option, but
it'll modernize the framework and allow for better management of our funds and
give more options to our very qualified and capable staff within the Department
of Finance to look at investment possibilities such as Canadian mortgage bonds
and Canadian municipal bonds and other high-rated bonds.
It
essentially removes the handcuffs on government in terms of its ability to
invest in areas where revenues are generally higher but the risk is not a huge
risk. Whenever you have a higher revenue –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
hard to hear the Member.
T. OSBORNE:
And I'm right next to you.
SPEAKER:
And you're right next to me
is right.
T. OSBORNE:
So, Speaker, whenever you
have a higher yield potential on a bond, the risks are a little higher, but what
the Department of Finance is looking to invest in are generally considered to be
safe investments within our sinking funds.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm supportive of this. I think it is high time for the province to do
this. I know it's something the department has been looking at for some time. I
think that under the guidance of Treasury Board and the staff within the
department, I feel that we should be safe in the investments that are being
made.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We will
be supporting this bill as well. I mean, essentially, this is all about
budgeting. It's all about budgeting when you look at it. You're talking about
investing in a fund so that you can pay off the debt. But before I get into
that, I just want to talk about the other piece here, which is no less
important. That's the piece on changing the narrative in it in terms of being
gender neutral.
That's
very important as we go forward. I know when we review Cabinet papers and
legislation, there's a financial lens goes on, there's a rural lens goes on it.
We also have a gender lens that we apply on all our papers when we look at it.
We look at it from different perspectives to ensure that everything is being
addressed. Of course, this here is probably more like a gender-neutral lens. In
looking at the terminology that we use within this piece of legislation and I'm
sure all our legislation will have to be eventually amended to meet the standard
of today. So it is important that we do that. I am glad to see that being done.
Of
course, the other piece here is we are talking about broadening our sinking
funds and how we invest in them. As I said, no, it's a budgeting piece, and for
those out there who are glued to the screen now watching this, I am going to say
to them it is not a saving plan. It is not an emergency fund. It is where you
have money allocated for a specific cause and you're putting money away to pay
off that bill when it comes due.
In my
instance, we all pay – or I would hope we all pay, we don't know what is going
to happen with regionalization – property tax and we all pay tax to
municipalities. So I have a tax-free savings account. I take an estimate of what
that is and every months a little bit goes in so I don't have to worry about it.
When the bill comes due each year – you know that bill we are all anxiously
awaiting for – the money is there to pay it off. So, essentially, what is
happening here is that and we're looking at, okay, where do we put that money?
We're investing it. We're trying to get our best return on investment so that
when the time comes to pay that bill, we probably made a bit of money and can
pay it sooner.
I have
to say the staff did a wonderful job. I was unable to attend but I heard the
staff and officials did a wonderful job in briefing on this bill. They talked
about the investment policy is yet to be written. I won't say it sends off red
flags because I'm sure those staff are quite confident and capable of doing it.
But it does create a little bit of uncertainty in that we don't know what our
investment policy will be.
You talk
about you can invest in blue chip or invest here and it gives some examples and
when you develop an investment portfolio. When any of us go in to see our
financial advisor, you might invest in mutual funds and some may be no risk but
low return. As the Member across said, you can have those with higher risk but
better return. You really have to have a combination of those. That is what you
call an investment portfolio. You have high risk, low risk and something in
between.
The only
thing I see that sticks out here is on the investment policy and not knowing
exactly what our policy is in terms of how are we investing. How are we
investing in these sinking funds and what return on investment are we hoping to
get? I don't suspect we're going to be all high risk and I don't suspect we're
going to be all low risk. I suspect there will be some combination there.
We
always heard – I think it was the old commercials – Canadian Pacific: diversify.
I would hope that there's going to be some very competent, knowledgeable and
proper decisions made on how these different funds would be applied and some
diversification there.
So,
again, I have no issue with this bill, no issue at all. I think it's the proper
way to go in terms of trying to pay down on upcoming debts that come due. I just
have a little uncertainty – I'm not saying it's going to be bad or good, I just
don't know – around the investment policy, what's that going to look like.
I would
hope, with the constraints we have as a province, all that will be taken into
consideration. The general public out there, I know, they're out there and
they're talking about budgeting and they look at this and some of them may not
be able to put money away. Some may not even have a savings account. Some may
not even have an emergency account. You know, we're living day-by-day.
We, as a
government – government there and us, collectively – need to make sure that,
from our point of view, if we're going to be paying down our debt or making sure
the bills are paid when they come due, that we are making the best investments
that allow us to get the greatest return on investment. Because that's the
benefit – the true benefit here is getting the greater return on investment with
the optimal risk level that we can have.
So I can
go on, it's too much of an exciting topic, but I'm going to let it go.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of chatter is getting a little too loud.
P. DINN:
I'm going to sit down. We'll
be supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to support the bill as well, Bill 48. Unfortunately, I never got to the
briefing but I have a general idea what it is about. Perhaps the minister can
offer some clarification for me at least in her closing remarks or, if not, when
we get to Committee of the Whole.
When
we're talking about investment and return on investment here, my take on it –
and I stand to be corrected – is really what we're talking about here is money
that we're putting into like, for example, the pension plan and so on, to be
able to invest funds in the pension plan. Again, the minister is nodding her
head.
I'd like
some further clarification on it exactly. Because, to the best of my knowledge,
we don't have money in this province – I mean, we're borrowing money year over
year. We don't have money that we can squirrel away in a sock. We don't have a
heritage fund – not now. I know the government is talking about putting one in
place. So just a little bit of a better understanding perhaps of, when we're
talking investing money, exactly how that's occurring and for what purpose. I'd
just like some clarification on that piece.
Generally speaking, as has been said, this is no different than if you have your
own personal investments and so on. Whether you go to a bank or you go to a
personal adviser and they will invest, whether it be your retirement funds or
whatever the case might be, into a number of portfolios. This is really no
different in principle. It's just allowing more flexibility for the government,
when they're making investments, to have more flexibility into what they can
invest it in.
Now,
another piece of clarification – and I'm sure perhaps it goes without
clarifying; I would hope. I'd like to have some understanding, and that's where
if you had a policy – as other Members have said, it would be great – an
understanding of how much high risk we're talking about. I mean, I would hope
we're not going investing now in crypto currency or land holdings in the
Everglades or anything like that. I'm sure we're not, but at the end of the day
some clarification on exactly what types of things we would be investing in and
some assurance that it's not going to be too risky.
We know
that you can get high returns. We all know. Again, it's no different than if I
went to a bank or a financial advisor tomorrow – I've done that – and they will
say we're going to do so much, what we'll call, low risk, so much medium risk, a
little bit higher risk, not too high of a risk, and it all balances out and you
get your best return. I would assume it would be something similar, but I
wouldn't want it to be wide open where somebody could really be too aggressive
and start gambling the people's money on high-risk instruments, if I could put
it that way. If the bottom falls out her, then we're all, as a province, here
holding the bag. That would be my only concern with it, that that couldn't
happen. It would be a calculated risk and it would be something that, worst-case
scenario, we're not going to end up in a terrible situation in terms of how much
we're investing into the higher risk.
So I
would like some assurance on that part. I'm sure that's going to be the case. We
have professionals here within the Department of Finance that are managing the
funds. I'm certainly not calling their abilities or integrity into question. I'm
sure they will do it properly and responsibly, but it would be nice to have some
clarification that there would not be too much high-risk activity.
As I
said, the other piece I just want some clarification on is exactly when we're
talking about investing money for the average person, and for me, personally.
I've been around 11 years, but it's not a conversation I don't think I've ever
really had, and trying to understand exactly what money we're talking about.
Because, to my mind, money is coming in and money is going out and, for the most
part, the money coming in is not enough to pay for what needs to go out, hence
the reason why we keep going deficit over deficit over deficit. So if someone
would ask, if you were trying to explain that to the general public, they'd say,
where are you getting the money to invest? Sure, you have no money; you're
borrowing money. So what money are we talking about?
So I'd
like a little bit further clarification on exactly what money we're investing;
give us an example of why we're doing it and how we're doing it. I would
appreciate if the minister perhaps could touch on that in her closing remarks,
if not, during Committee.
Other
than that, I will support the bill.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers if
the minister speaks now, we will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much and I appreciate the support for this concept; I think this
is important.
To
answer directly the Member opposite, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands,
his question, a sinking fund is basically a fund that has been established for
the purpose retiring public debt. We hold approximately $1.4 billion in that
account, and right now, it is only able to be invested in bonds. As you know,
yields on bonds have been extremely low over the last half decade, over the last
little while. So each year the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
contributes to the sinking fund and those funds are invested. The funds can only
used to repay debt when it matures. It has nothing to do, for example, with
pension plans. Pension plans have their own investment requirements.
So it's
just, literally, money that is held by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to pay down debt. We hold that money and we invest that in bonds right
now. What this is asking for is so that we can get a higher rate of return and
pay down more debt, the $1.4 billion that we hold, can we have some investment
flexibility.
You
asked what would we invest it in. Well, Canada Mortgage Bonds – so that is
different than government bonds. Canada Mortgage Bonds are fully backed by CMHC.
Canadian municipal bonds – so, for example, the City of Toronto issues a
municipal bond. Under the current legislation, we're not allowed to invest in
that. Even though it's fully guaranteed by order of magnitude and governments
and it yields higher than a government bond, we can't invest in it because we're
restricted. In years past, it was enough for us to be able to invest in
government bonds, but government bonds have been so low yielding.
The
other two avenues that you're allowing us to be able to invest in is very highly
rated corporate bonds – so really highly rated. They have to have a really good
credit rating to be able to do that and have to have creditworthiness with
adequate protection and highly rated shares of publicly traded companies.
Companies that are in the Standard and Poor's, TSX 60 or in the United States
corporations on the S&P 500, so really highly rated stocks.
Let me
tell you some of the stocks that may be included: Laurentian Bank; a bank stock;
Algonquin Power; General Motors Financial Corporation; and Loblaws. So these are
really highly rated, publicly traded companies to use an example.
So
that's what were limited to: Canada Mortgage Bonds, fully backed by CMHC;
municipal bonds, which are higher yielding but pretty well guaranteed – their
credit rating has to be BBB; plus they are backed by a higher magnitude of
government – and corporate bonds or publicly traded shares. That's what we're
opening up, instead of just government bonds, and allowing the portfolio to be
invested in these things.
Now,
allow me to say that there's been some question about whether or not this floor
should actually see the investment policy. That is administrative in nature. How
this House would hold us to account is, of course, the fact that we would table
– we have to table the financial statements of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Sinking Funds. They are tabled here in this House. So you do have full
transparency on it and, as well, an annual report is tabled in this House and
has been tabled in this House. You will see the returns, their investments, how
it's being managed and that's how you hold this government to account.
Treasury
Board function, of course, is the administrative function. There is also a board
of trustees of the sinking funds that currently exists. But the Treasury Board
would have an eye to – what I'm going to call – the operational issue of the
investment, the investment policy. Of course, that is comprised of some of the
senior Members of Cabinet including – I'll just look and say – the Minister of
Industry, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education. I'm looking
around trying to remember who else is on it. The Minister of Immigration is on
it. There are a number of the Cabinet that sit on Treasury Board to oversee the
functions of Treasury Board, which will set the investment policy.
Of
course, as I said, you would hold – people in this House will hold us to account
and you would have full transparency on what's happening because the financial
statements, as well as the annual report, are tabled in this House of Assembly.
I think
I've covered off some of the questions that have been asked. I'll pause there
and, of course, we'll seek to go to more questions when we get to the Committee
stage.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 48 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.'
Motion
carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act. (Bill 48)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. COADY:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 48)
SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of Whole to consider Bill 48.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act.
A bill,
“An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act.” (Bill 48)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of
all, Minister, I thank you for answering the questions earlier.
Again,
I'm just trying to understand and perhaps anyone who may be listening – I don't
know if there's anybody listening – but if we have $1.4 billion, as you say,
right now, how much does that grow every year? Beyond investments – so like in
this year's budget, how much more would go into that fund in a typical year? Is
it growing by $10 million a year, or $5 million a year? How did we get to the
$1.4 billion and does that continue to grow?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
It's a
very important question. I'm just waiting to find out the amount from my
officials as to how much it grew in the past year. That $1.4 billion is held in
the sinking fund, as I said, and it can only be invested in government bonds,
which yield probably less than 2 per cent, at this point in time. I'm making a
stab while I'm waiting for my officials who are really Johnny-on-the-spot
usually with giving me the amount that was earned last year. Allow them to come
back to me and tell me what we earned.
But once
that money is earned, it again goes back in the sinking fund. So let's just say
they earn 2 per cent, it goes back into the sinking fund and then paid down on
debt as debt matures.
I just
got it: $43 million this year.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you. I appreciate that,
Minister. That is good information.
I guess
the other question that comes to mind, for me at least, is if we have $1.4
billion, as you say, in the sinking fund and it is only earning 2 per cent a
year or whatever the case might be, why would you have it? Why wouldn't you just
say I'm going to take the whole $1.4 billion out of the bank, for lack of a
better term, and I'm going to pay $1.4 billion down on the debt and then that is
less interest I am paying. As opposed to, I am paying interest over here and
then I am collecting very little revenue over here. I am just keeping the money,
as I say, just hoarded away in an account, so to speak. Why wouldn't you just
spend the whole $1.4 billion and put it all down on the debt? What is the
rationale?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
It's an
interesting concept. The money is specific to each issue of debt and they can't
be used until debt matures. So it is all part of what I am going to call a
larger financial management where you have – it's tied to debt that is coming
due and tied to when it matures. So it is held, then as debt matures this money
is then used to pay down that debt.
So
there's an interplay, I guess, of sinking funds going into the fund account,
then being held and invested to try and earn more money so we can have more
money to pay down the debt. Then as debt comes due, the sinking funds go to pay
down that debt. So there is just an interplay of what is held in different
accounts. It is an accountant function and we can't change it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a
couple of quick questions to follow up as well. You have outlined a number of
investment opportunities that will now be available as a result of this change.
Is there any limitation on how much can be invested in any particular category
or is that part of what the policy will talk about?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
That
would be part of the policy that we would consider and that will be brought to
Treasury Board for oversight, of course, and the board of trustees would be
involved in that as well. The only categories would be those four categories
because that's what you're allowing as part of the legislation. Then the mix
would come as part of the investment policy. The accountability framework would
be tabled here in the House of Assembly for your review and then as a function
of accountability and transparency.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I
understand that. It will come back to us. At the time it comes back, of course,
it will be after the investments have been made, have been successful or not
successful. Your goal, obviously, is to increase that $43 million to something
much higher in time.
I just
wanted to ensure that, at the end of the day, this balanced approach that we
talked about, my colleague mentioned it as well, that's what will be looked at
by Treasury Board or recommended by the board of directors who then takes it to
Treasury Board for that particular final say in how that money gets reinvested.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board
S. COADY:
Thank you.
If you
will note, we're limited, Treasury Board is limited to those categories that
I've listed, which are pretty safe investments. We're not trying to take on too
much risk. There's no meddling with crypto currency or anything of that nature.
Very – what I'm going to call – secure bonds that come from Canada Mortgage and
Housing, municipal bonds, highly rated corporate bonds or publicly traded
companies. Really limiting, but hopefully yielding more than what we currently
yield. Right now, we're yielding approximately 3 per cent. I did get that
number. It's approximately 3 per cent. I said 2 per cent, but it's actually 3
per cent.
But as
you know in the markets today, you're seeing 8, 9 or 10 per cent returns. We
don't expect that, but every percentage matters. So if we can earn even a per
cent or two more, certainly, it would help us. I said I think it was $43 million
that we've earned this year on that sinking fund. If you have a percentage or
two more that would pretty much double. So it's all, again, that really
responsible financial management picture that I'm talking about here as to
allowing us to pay down and manage our debt more responsibly.
What
we're trying to achieve here, and it is part of this great big picture that I
keep talking about, if you look at balance budget legislation and the future
fund and changes to the Financial
Administration Act and yielding better returns, it's really lowering our
cost of debt. If we can lower our cost of debt – right now our cost of debt is
approximately $1 billion a year. At one point, it was actually higher than
Education. We were spending more in debt servicing than we were on Education. I
don't know where we sit at current date because we've increased some of our
spending in Education, of course, because of COVID. But it is so important for
our overall goal of lowering our cost of debt to do this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
The
minister sort of answered the question I was going to ask, but I'm just
wondering, I'm assuming that there was some sort of a cost-benefit analysis or
risk analysis with regards to the anticipated revenue, I guess the increases
would come back in, that's where I was going to go with it. You must have some
idea or projections as to how this would benefit the fund?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I will say that there's
modelling always done. I know you can appreciate the expertise we have in the
Department of Finance and how impressive they are when it comes to ensuring that
we're maximizing our returns and modelling out how this would impact.
It
really depends on the mix, so you can't – there are too many levers to tell you,
look, we're hoping to increase it by X amount at this point in time, because it
really depends on that investment policy. But you can imagine that even opening
ourselves up to municipal bonds would yield a per cent or two higher than what
we're currently earning, without taking on too much risk.
That's
the key here. We don't want to take on so much risk that we're earning 10 per
cent, even though that's wonderful. Even if we can get to 5 per cent here, a
little bit higher than what we're earning now does have tremendous impact. At 3
per cent, it's $43 million and if we're earning 5 per cent, it would be that
much more again, $60 million or $65 million.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
One last question.
So
you've made this decision, do you foresee future changes in this that might
increase the risk again or is this where we're staying with it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I think this is where we're
staying at the moment. We want to be really responsible, obviously, and we want
to see how this foray goes. We want to make sure it's blue chip, secured, low
risk. We're assuming some risk, of course, that's inevitable to get a little bit
higher in the marketplace. But then anything that we can earn on this and pay
down more debt lowers our cost of borrowing and everybody in this House would
like to do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you.
Minister, I just want to go back to the sinking fund again. Just for my own
clarification here, and anyone who might be interested, if we want to try to
make it really simple, really what we're saying here is that – to use a
simplistic example – you loan me money and I know that at the end of the year I
have to pay you at least $1,000 just on my interest because this is not about
paying off the debt. This is really about making interest payments, for the most
part, because we continue to be in debt.
So if I
had to pay you $1,000, I'm saying, well, I could take the $1,000 and put it in
my sock drawer and wait until the end of the year and give you $1,000, or I
could take the $1,000, put it in some kind of investment and instead of paying
you the $1000, I could now pay you $1,100 or maybe I'd pay you $1,000 and I just
made $100 I could spend on something – whatever the case might be. But that's
the idea and you're multiplying that times – obviously larger amounts in various
loans that you've got in various departments and so on. That's kind of what
we're doing.
I just
want to go back in terms of that $1.4 billion, which currently sits there, I'm
assuming that there's been some sort of analysis done within the department to
say based on the fact that we haven't been earning a whole lot of interest and
based on the interest we're paying on our current debt, I'm assuming there's an
analysis that will say this is the best way to go, as opposed to simply taking
the whole $1.4 billion and paying it off on one of the debts or all the debts or
whatever the case might be and saving the money on the interest side of things.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I think
it was a simplistic analogy but not a bad one. It certainly is that kind of
consideration. You're taking your money that you've held for a specific issue of
debt to pay down that debt-specific issue and you're investing it and then
you're going to take that little bit of return and you might pay it down more on
debt.
What
we're trying to achieve here is maximizing those returns without too much risk
to pay down debt faster. So they can only be used for debt repayment on
maturity. So you can only use sinking funds for repayment of debt upon maturity
and interest payments are made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Your
analogy is not a bad one and that's what we're trying to achieve. You can only
pay it on the debt upon maturity I guess is the key point here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister. That
really clarifies it.
Again, I
just want to try to understand, though, let's say if a debt matured and it was a
large number, whatever it is, could we take the whole $1.4 billion or could we
take $1 billion or could we take a half a billion or whatever and instead of
just paying an interest charge, pay off the entire debt or one of the debts or
something? Would that save us money in the sense that yeah, we're not making
that couple of percent or whatever on the interest on the sinking fund, but
we're saving more money in the interest we're paying on the debt we owe, if you
know what I'm saying?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
So you've just made a good
argument for a future bond. So a sinking fund is specific to a debt issuance,
but if you wanted to have money in a future fund – for example, you take money
that you've earned, you're going to take a percentage of what you earned, say,
from offshore oil royalties, and you put it in a future fund, as debt matures,
then you can pay down more. The sinking funds are about a specific issuance.
Does that make sense?
So it's
a good argument to have both: your future fund that, as other debt matures, you
can take money that might be in your future fund, pay it down on debt; use your
sinking funds to pay it down on an issuance of debt. So combined, you're really
lowering your cost of borrowing. If we had time, I could go into this kind of
strategic over-plan, the plan that we're doing to really drive both responsible
financial management as well as responsible debt management. And those two
things combined will really lower our cost of borrowing.
And
that's one of my big goals, because I consider that backroom things that will
really help us with financial sustainability.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I guess
my final comment more so than a question is I do support that. My only concern
with the so-called – quote, unquote – “future fund,” if you will, is how that
money gets spent. From a personal point of view, given where we're to
financially and everything else – I use Bay du Nord as an example, assuming it
goes ahead, and signs are looking positive, fingers and toes crossed, that
personally I think that we should carve out a portion of – because that's
revenue we don't have now. Whatever the percentage is, that should be going
right on paying off the debt, not spending on other stuff.
We've
got to get out of the hole somehow, and that's an opportunity, so I'm with you.
Maybe having both instruments at play to pay down the debt is what we need to
do. We can't continue to borrow, borrow, borrow forever. I mean everybody in
this House of Assembly knows that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I think you're thinking in
the right line. When we get to the future fund legislation, you will see what
we're proposing there. But I will say to the Member opposite, we do want to pay
down our debt. We want to, first of all, lower our cost of borrowing and we want
to pay down debt, because that's where we get into a sustainable future for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Look,
every single one of us in this House wants a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient
and sustainable province. That's what we all want to achieve, and there are
many, many things that we can do to ensure that. One of the avenues, of course,
is this kind of strategic financial management that I've been talking about.
That's
why this legislation is important for allowing us to get a better return on our
sinking funds, and then there are other pieces that we're bringing in as well
that add to that to drive down debt and our cost of borrowing.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 25
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 25
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 25 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 48
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the Committee report having passed Bill 48 without amendment.
CHAIR:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 48.
CHAIR:
It is moved that the
Committee rise and report Bill 48.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
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 Deputy Chair of Committees and Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 48 carried without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of
Committees has reported that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 48 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a
third time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House do
now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
The motion is this House do
now stand adjourned.
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.'
Motion
carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.