June 26, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 10
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
speaking to the motion, and delighted to be standing today to highlight three
individuals who we hope will receive unanimous assent by this Legislature to be
appointed to the IAC. We're also looking to appoint a chair to the IAC. At the
same time, we're thanking three commissioners that are leaving the IAC, who made
the decision to retire. These three commissioners, Mr. Speaker, agreed to stay
on while they looked for replacements; a bit of different situation where they,
themselves, look for their own replacements, but under the IAC Act they set out
to find replacements for themselves and did so.
In 2016,
the Independent Appointments Commission
Act was our inaugural legislation. It now makes this province the most open
and accessible appointments process for agencies, boards and commissions in the
country. The IAC is independent. It's non-partisan. It is a merit-based process.
In 2017,
we made changes to the IAC Act to expand the roster of commissioners from a
maximum of five, to a minimum of five and maximum of seven. This was at the
request of the chair, Mr. Clyde Wells, who said that the amount of time these
volunteers commit to the IAC process was, in fact, very demanding, and he made
the recommendation to expand it to seven so that they would have a quorum with a
minimum of three and be able to conduct searches for qualified individuals with
two committees as opposed to one.
We made
two new appointments: Mr. Earl Ludlow and Ms. Cathy Duke. Mr. Speaker, I had a
discussion with Mr. Clyde Wells who was a former premier, as most people in this
Legislature would know, and the current chair of the IAC, regarding the fact
that the three-year terms of the inaugural group of the commissioners had come
to an end. Mr. Wells advised me that two of the commissioners were open to
continuing on the Commission if we would consider reappointing them, but three
of the commissioners had made the decision to retire.
We want
to thank Mr. Clyde Wells for his dedication and service to the IAC, as well as
Ms. Shannie Duff, former Mayor of the City of St. John's and Ms. Zita Cobb, a
well-known and successful business person who we obviously know owns the Fogo
Island Inn, Mr. Speaker.
These
three individuals have been extremely dedicated. In fact, all five of the
initial appointments were extremely dedicated to the process of looking for
qualified individuals under the merit-based process. I believe their efforts
have been crucial in getting this new Commission off the ground, in determining
how the Commission would work and in providing names to government, as they've
done with the three individuals we're about to appoint or, hopefully, will
appoint today.
Their
dedication to the IAC, Mr. Speaker, is unquestioned as proven by the fact that
Mr. Wells, Ms. Cobb and Ms. Duff all agreed to accept reappointment in March of
this year on an interim basis while they undertook the recruitment for their
replacements.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to ask all Members here today to thank these outgoing members
for the extremely dedicated work that they've performed.
As I've
indicated at the start of this, there are two orders of business, the
recommendation with Mr. Earl Ludlow, who the House appointed unanimously this
part March to act as chair, the new chair of the IAC.
Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Ludlow recently retired from his role as executive vice-president,
Eastern Canadian and Caribbean Operations and operational advisor to the
president and CEO of Fortis Inc. His career with Fortis spanned nearly 40 years.
Mr. Ludlow has an extensive career as a community volunteer. He served two terms
on Memorial University's Board of Regents and two terms as the honourary
lieutenant colonel of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, First Battalion.
In 2018,
through a recommendation of the IAC, Mr. Ludlow was appointed to The Rooms board
as a director. He is a member of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists
Newfoundland and Labrador and a member of the Order of Newfoundland and
Labrador. He has been inducted into the Atlantic provinces' CEO Business Hall of
Fame by the Atlantic Business Magazine,
was designated as Humanitarian of the Year by the Canadian Red Cross in 2010 and
is a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. Mr. Ludlow earned a Bachelor
of Engineering, electrical, in 1980, and a Master of Business Administration
from Memorial University in 1994. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ludlow is who we are
recommending as chair of the IAC.
The
second order of business is the recommendation of three candidates for the
Commission. The recruitment of potential new commissioners was done by the IAC
through the merit-based approach, and today we're recommending three of those
candidates to join the ranks of the IAC. I'd like to provide the details on each
of these three to all Members of the House of Assembly, and indeed anybody who
may be watching the broadcast, so that all Members will be clear that we're
recommending very highly qualified individuals.
For
several years, we've received feedback from the public that they'd like to see a
greater Indigenous representation on the province's agencies, boards and
commissions. The IAC worked diligently to recruit individuals from the
Indigenous communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that Mr. Gerald
Anderson will bring significant experience to continuing with these efforts.
Mr.
Anderson has over 30 years of experience working with the Marine Institute, most
recently as director of Development and Engagement. Throughout his career with
the Marine Institute, Mr. Anderson was designated lead for all work with
Indigenous stakeholders in regions across Canada. In his role, he worked with
Indigenous groups in Nunavut, Nunavik, Northern Ontario, British Columbia, Nova
Scotia, PEI and the Northwest Territories.
From
2016 to 2018, Mr. Anderson was appointed as vice-president, Indigenous, with
University of the Arctic, or UArctic, a network of universities with 180 members
worldwide, including Memorial University. In this position, Mr. Anderson was
responsible for ensuring Indigenous inclusion in all activates undertaken by
UArctic.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe that Mr. Anderson is significantly qualified for the role of
commissioner with the IAC and his career experience adds an additional area of
expertise.
Our
second proposed commissioner is Ms. Peggy Bartlett, a candidate from Central
Newfoundland. Ms. Bartlett is a successful entrepreneur, has over 22 years as a
successful owner-operator of five McDonald's restaurants in Central, with stores
in Grand Falls-Windsor, Lewisporte and Gander. Prior to this, she spent 15 years
as a community health nurse with the Janeway hospital.
In
recent years, Ms. Bartlett has served as town councillor with the Town of Grand
Falls-Windsor. She has significant volunteer and board experience including
current membership on the board of the Gander International Airport Authority,
the Grand Falls-Windsor Heritage Society and the provincial government's
Innovation and Business Investment Corporation, to name a few.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, we are recommending Mr. Ed Roberts to be the third new
commissioner. Mr. Roberts is well-known to most Members of his hon. House. He
has over 25 years of public service experience including 23 years as an elected
member of this House, representing the Districts of White Bay North and Lake
Melville.
During
his time in government, Mr. Roberts held several Cabinet portfolios including
minister of Public Welfare, minister of Health, minister of Justice and Attorney
General.
Mr.
Roberts retired from politics in 1996, and from 2002 to 2008 he served as the
province's Lieutenant-Governor. In 2009, he was made a member of the Order of
Canada. Mr. Roberts is a lawyer by trade. He was called to the bar in
Newfoundland and Labrador in 1965.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe that all Members will agree that these three candidates are
more than qualified for the roles they will undertake.
I look
forward to the continued successes of the Independent Appointments Commission as
they ensure positions that are filled with our agencies, boards and commissions
are filled through the merit-based process by qualified candidates.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand here today and talk about the appointments of the new
members of the Independent Appointments Commission, but, particularly, to thank
the outgoing members who have been members from its inception here and who've
done a great job to ensure that the people who are put in positions,
particularly in agencies and boards in Newfoundland and Labrador, are the best
people to be able serve in those particular roles.
I do
want to thank, on behalf of the Official Opposition, Mr. Wells, Ms. Cobb and Ms.
Duff. I've had the opportunity over my career to have worked with all three in
different capacities and found them to be extremely professional, extremely
dedicated, but extremely committed to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know
every time they sat in any meeting and had a discussion about anything relevant
to improving Newfoundland and Labrador their hearts were in it, but no doubt
they wanted to do the best job. I know they did the same when they were looking
at the appointments for the Commission itself; indeed, we've seen the fruits of
their labour. We have some great people who are leading some of our great
organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador doing some very important work to
ensure the quality of life for people here is improved.
I also
want to thank the new members, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Bartlett for
putting their names forward. There's a commitment to make this work. It's a
commitment to be part of any board. It's a commitment to put yourself out there
to assess the value of other individuals when it comes to whether or not they're
the best individual to put forward on a particular board or agency. It's a hard
job because you've got to make some real decisions, but it's a rewarding job
because at the end of the day you know you had an input into doing something
that benefits the general population in a positive way.
So, I
don't want to belabour the whole conversation here, but I do want to emphasize
the fact that we've got a working system here now that if used exactly the way
that it was intended to, we will have the most efficient ability to operate our
boards and agencies and doing appointments in Newfoundland and Labrador to
ensure the best people are at the helms of those organizations or a part of the
decision-making process to ensure the dollars that are spent, the programs that
are implemented and the outcomes are to the best benefit of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll end by congratulating those new members and thanking them for
putting their name forward, but, particularly, a sincere thank you to the
outgoing three members for their dedication, their commitment to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a second just to say that I will support the motion. Certainly, I
know Mr. Roberts and his accomplishments. To be honest with you, I don't know
the other two individuals but I put faith in the members of the IAC who have
gone through the recruiting process and have given it the green light from their
perspective and I will trust their judgment on it. I'm sure these are all
qualified people and so I will be supporting it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
would like to support this bill. I know several of these individuals personally,
and I think they are stellar candidates and they will do an exceptional job.
This is
a very important role. It is a very important thing to be able to have a
non-partisan entity oversee the appointment of individuals who are in our
agencies, boards and commissions. These are non-partisan roles, and it's
absolutely vital to ensure that those roles be kept impeccable.
It would
be wonderful to see the use of the Independent Appointments Commission for all
appointments of senior executives within all agencies, boards and commissions.
In particular, we'd like to see something like that in The Rooms. We'd like to
see the criteria be expanded for the Independent Appointments Commission to
include gender and diversity criteria. These things are very important and we'd
like to see a greater representation of individuals with diverse backgrounds and
positions in these roles. Yes, we would like to support this motion.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the motion?
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, I would call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
waiting for the clock so I see how much time I got to speak here.
Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to thank all Members of the Legislature for participating
in the budget debate in the Estimates process in raising points, asking
questions, and on this side in providing answers to those questions through the
Estimates process. I wanted to thank all officials from the departments who
participated in the Estimates process.
I know I
have spoken to a number of Members on the other side about how they intend to
vote on the budget, Mr. Speaker, so I'm looking forward to the vote.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the question?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government?
All those in favour of the question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
I summon
in all the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, Motion 3, that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,
Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr.
Bennett, Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Ms. Coffin, Mr.
James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
Motion 3, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.
Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway
Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Tibbs,
Mr. Forsey.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 23; the nays: 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, with leave of my colleagues, I would ask that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Estimates of the Legislature.
MR. 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 to consider the Estimates of the Legislature.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Reid):
Order, please!
We are
now considering the Estimates of the Legislature.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 7.1.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 through 7.1.01
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01
through 7.1.01
carried.
CLERK:
The totals.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, Estimates of the Legislature,
total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Legislature carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I would move that the
Committee rise and report the Estimates of the Legislature.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Chair of the
Committee of the Whole and the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the
Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Supply reports that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the
Legislature.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, I would ask leave for a motion to be brought forward regarding the Social
Services Concurrence committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the Government House
Leader have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Social Service Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of
the Department of Justice and Public Safety; the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development; the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment; the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development; the
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; and the Department of Health and
Community Services.
At this
time, I certainly would like to thank all ministers and their officials and all
Committee Members.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, again, thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
With
leave of my colleagues, I would ask that we call the Concurrence Motion just
entered by my colleague from Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave has been granted.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's a
pleasure, again, to stand in this House and to discuss the budget. We have dealt
with a lot of substantive policy issues during the Estimate Committees and it's
always a refreshing exercise, even though it's often later in the evening than I
would have liked some nights. We had a very engaged and engaging discussion at
the Estimates for my own department in Health and Community Services.
I think,
again, for the benefits of the Members of the House, to repeat the main themes
of the budget from the point of view of Health and Community Services, it is one
of the biggest, if not the biggest expense government has. Second only – well,
it's not second only to anything, quite frankly, it's ahead of debt servicing by
about a factor of three. It is in common with a lot of other jurisdictions, the
single largest expenditure that governments of this country incur.
One of
the things I am very pleased with over the course of this tenure and the
previous mandate is that we have managed to increase services and to reboot and
reinvigorate significant portions of the health care delivery system in this
province. We have done it whilst maintaining fiscal responsibility and keeping
our costs constant within the limits of inflation.
We are
only one of three jurisdictions in the last CIHI report to have achieved a rate
of growth of health care expenditure that is less than inflation. Currently, our
is, depending on whether you look at accrual or cash flow, of the order of 0.8
per cent, at a time when inflation is 2.6-plus per cent.
One of
the instructions I was given in my original mandate letter back in 2015 was to
address the issue of our high per capita costs of health care expenditure.
Again, using third party data, not our own, if you look at the CIHI figures, you
can see the trend line is remarkably different now for this province than it was
prior to 2016. Our rate of rise of health care expenditure is minimal, to the
point where, given the rate of rise of other provincial jurisdictions in this
country, our two lines will cross sometime around 2025-26.
For
those who are trying to imagine what that graph might look like in their heads,
essentially, what it will mean is that we will have held expenditure per capita
constant, whilst everywhere else in the country expenditure per capita has risen
and risen to the point where it will now exceed ours in dollar values. I think
that is a tribute to the hard work of the staff within the Department of Health
and Community Services under a series of deputy ministers and a very vigorous
and enthused executive team.
We have
very able staff who have brought forth innovative policies and enabled us to do
what very few jurisdictions have done. I have said in this House on other
occasions that while we compare ourselves with other provinces, once you
actually leave the Avalon Peninsula, our population density is not much
different than that of Nunavut's. We are, in actual fact, essentially a
territory. Were one to use that as a comparator on costs per capita of health
care, we are well below the national average; well below indeed.
I think,
again, we are one of the provinces that are very bad at telling others what we
actually do very well. Within that costing envelope, we have seen huge changes
in, for example, the organization and delivery of mental health and addiction
services following the Action Plan we released from Towards Recovery. That
landmark All-Party Committee, triggered by all the parties of the House of the
day and that was prior to the election in 2015, deserve our recognition for the
amount of effort that they put in in generating that process. The results of
that process, however, have become a beacon on the Atlantic seaboard of what
Canada and what Canadian jurisdictions can actually achieve.
We have
gone from being a passive participant in the provincial and territorial meetings
to, in the realm of mental health and addictions, becoming leaders. There are
two jurisdictions in this country that other provinces and territories come to,
to seek advice on mental health and addictions issues. One is British Columbia
because of the numbers and the significant burden of opioid deaths that have
resulted. The other is Newfoundland and Labrador and that is because of the
thoughtful and constructive policies that we have generated and implemented over
the course of the last 3½ years.
This
budget, to focus on one area, for example, deals specifically in capital with a
replacement for our oldest piece of infrastructure, which is the Waterford
Hospital. In 1855, when it opened its doors first, Queen Victoria sat on the
throne and the Crimean War was the news of the day. The Victoria Cross had not
yet been invented or described as a decoration for valour in the Commonwealth.
It is that old.
We have
now enacted a plan, not just an approach, but there will be site work on the new
site this construction season to put there what will be the final piece, when it
is opened, of the reorganization of mental health and addictions services in
this province. Mental health and addictions, however, will not be delivered
solely through a building on the Health Sciences Centre complex. It is an
approach that takes mental wellness and puts it into people's hands before they
become ill. It is an approach that takes mental health and brings it into the
communities.
Through
programs such as Doorways, you'll see on the Burin Peninsula, you'll see in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in Labrador in general, we have abolished – abolished
completely – wait times for cancelling services. People who once had barriers
and prolonged waits – and going back two years, I think, the figures for Goose
Bay were people of the number of 250 waiting in excess of 300 days for
cancelling. Within a year, those have completely disappeared.
We have
Doorways in over 52 communities, no barrier. We know from data and from
satisfaction surveys that of the people who go through those doors without an
appointment, 50 per cent of them will have their issues addressed fully and
completely by that one visit. That is a stunning testament to their efficacy.
It is
also a portal of entry which, again, requires no referral. They walk in. If
there are issues that cannot be resolved, we have a suite of things that we can
offer for people with problems and families with difficulties. Because we've
learned that, for example, with childhood anxiety, treating the entire family is
as important as treating the individual child.
Through
that, and through the use of technology where, again, we lead the country in
online support services, online cancelling and we're moving into the virtual
health arena in partnership and in conjunction and at the same time as the
Canadian Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association.
These
are examples of what we have done with the budget. We have spent our money more
wisely. The approach that we adopted in 2015 and we've carried through is the
triple aim of better individual outcomes, better population health and better
value for the health care dollar we have invested.
I would
argue, Mr. Speaker, this budget builds on that success and actually demonstrates
the validity and the utility of that approach. I would encourage all Members of
this House to just sit there and reflect on what we have been able to achieve by
thinking differently and looking at the way we do business rather than simply
throwing money at the problem as had been the remedy for a succession of
previous provincial and federal governments, regardless of the stripe.
With
that acknowledgement of the hard work of, not only staff in my department but
health care providers across the province who daily go above and beyond, I will
take my seat and commend this budget to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
motion?
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and address the House of Assembly on behalf
of the people of the District of Harbour Main. Serving the people you represent
comes with many duties, many responsibilities and many expectations, of course.
This I'm quickly discovering during my first two weeks as a newly elected MHA.
Reflecting on the past two weeks, Mr. Speaker, has been a very eye-opening
experience for me.
First of
all, I'd like to say that our PC caucus, Members of the Official Opposition,
have been duly elected by the people from all across this great province. They
represent talented, diverse, experienced and a strong team of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. Together, we represent the interests, Mr. Speaker, of 42 per
cent of the popular vote in our province. The Liberal government itself attained
approximately 44 per cent of the popular vote of the electorate.
Why are
these numbers important, Mr. Speaker? These figures reflect the will of the
people, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government can
no longer rule. The government can no longer govern as it pleases. The
government can no longer dismiss the important role of the Official Opposition.
Like one
of the hon. ministers last week, I observed, described us as – quote – that
crowd. Well, Mr. Speaker, that crowd represents a significant proportion of the
electorate and like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has to accept
that fact. The fact that the people, in their collective wisdom, have spoken.
The people have voted for change, not for the status quo, Mr. Speaker. The
status quo is not okay anymore. In fact, the people have put the government on
notice that if you fail to provide good and responsible government, you will be
held accountable.
What
exactly does it mean to provide good and responsible government? It means
consensus-oriented. It means being equitable, being responsive. It means having
a spirit of participatory involvement. It means accountability. It means
efficiency and effectiveness. They want us to work together.
The
people have spoken, but it also means we have to do things differently. We have
to do things better. It means a new approach. It means the people want us to try
new strategies, new priorities. It means our thinking has to be innovative,
progressive, thinking outside the box, if you will, approaching problems in
novel ways. This is imperative if we are to stop the decline that is happening
in our province.
Although
the past two weeks as a newly elected MHA have been a wonderful experience in
terms of observing the process in the House of Assembly, the past two weeks in
the House of Assembly have also been very disappointing. We, the Official
Opposition, are disappointed. The people of the province are also disappointed.
People,
unequivocally, voted for change. We see the new MHAs who have been elected, who
represent the progressive voices in our province, and with 56 per cent of the
electorate not supporting the government and its approach, we see that the
people have given us the opportunity and the obligation to try new methods, but,
sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government opted – they chose not to try and not
to listen.
We
brought forward priorities. The Official Opposition presented opportunities and
priorities to the government because we heard these priorities at the doorstep,
but yet the government still ignored these suggestions.
What
priorities did we present? We presented several; for example, immediate end of
the levy. Our people are struggling. I've heard that in my District of Harbour
Main. They are struggling with over taxation. They are taxed to death, Mr.
Speaker.
According to the government's own committee, the levy is a regressive tax as
well, yet there was no leverage, there was no response, there was no
collaboration, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals talk the talk about the collaboration
but when it comes to providing us, for example, with the information we need to
meaningfully collaborate, that's where the talking ends.
Other
priorities that we presented to the government: affordable home insurance. The
taxes that we see on home insurance, Mr. Speaker, we suggested and proposed that
we eliminate the sales tax on homeowner insurance. We need to give relief on
these taxes. The people of the District of Harbour Main were very clear about
that.
We also
recognize, Mr. Speaker, that lowering these taxes will drive the local spending
and facilitate job growth, generate revenue, yet they did not listen. Affordable
insulin pumps, another issue that I was presented with at the door by the
constituents of the District of Harbour Main. The removal of the age cap to
ensure Medicare covers the cost of insulin pumps for all persons with Type 1
diabetes. They didn't listen, Mr. Speaker. Their intention was not to
collaborate with us.
If we
endorse their agenda, and that is what we cannot do, they would then have blamed
us for all the things we opposed. Like high taxes and the deprivation of
services and continuing deterioration of our economy. Mr. Speaker, we could not
adopt their agenda. It could have been a collaborative approach to reflect the
people's agenda, an agenda that all of us could have supported. Instead, we get
the same old, stale agenda that cost the Liberals their majority, an agenda the
majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just voted against.
The
government ignored these suggestions; the government brought back the same
budget. We were not asking for an increase in spending. We were asking, simply,
for a reprioritization of spending. We were calling upon them to find efficiency
but, again, the budget does not reflect that. The government had an opportunity
to line up their priorities with what the people wanted and they didn't do that.
Mr.
Speaker, I would submit that in view of what I've observed in the last two weeks
as Member for the District of Harbour Main, the government remains entrenched in
the blame game. The government had an opportunity to do the right thing but
failed. In the spirit of co-operation we came here and presented these
suggestions for change to the government and they were ignored. The government
is not listening to the people. The government brought back the same budget, Mr.
Speaker. The government had the opportunity to do the right thing in the budget
and did not do so. If the government, Mr. Speaker, could find $40 million for
Canopy Growth, surely they could have found funding in other areas.
Our
people in the District of Harbour Main spoke loudly and clearly. They did not
want any more of the negative blame game, the finger pointing; rather, the
people are tired of that pessimistic, cynical attitude. Certainly there is
nothing wrong with reflecting on history. History is important, history teaches
us lessons and history will allow us to ensure that mistakes don't happen again,
to avoid the repeat of errors.
Mr.
Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, represents that change. The people
voted for change. The people have put the government on notice that if you fail
to provide good and reasonable government, you will be held accountable. They
want us to work together, Mr. Speaker. They want us to do things differently, a
better approach.
Mr.
Speaker, the budget was delivered but was never voted on prior to the election.
The election was called and the Liberal Party campaigned on their budget. We saw
the numbers that they received in terms of popular vote, their inability to
attain a majority government. So, arguably the people also voted against the
budget, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious the people did not agree. Why, therefore, was
the government not interested in listening and collaborating and working with
us? Why was the government not interested in incorporating any of our proposals
or changes to this budget? This budget lacked legitimacy because of that.
The
government had two options with respect to the budget: one, it could've
reintroduced the budget that was introduced back in April but never debated or
passed; or two, it could've introduced a revised budget to address some of the
concerns and constructive solutions raised during the election campaign. The
government opted for the first of these approaches, sadly, to bring back the
same budget as before without changes. We think they should have chosen the
other option. The result of the election is that the people of this province
mandated a different set of priorities from those embodied in the unpassed
budget.
We urged
the government to reconsider. We presented a reasonable alternative to consider
as outlined in our policy Blue Book.
We cautioned them that if they did not change the budget, the tax burden on the
people will be too high, that the level of the public expenditures will be too
high and that certain vital services that ought to be covered will be neglected.
I stand
here as a disappointed MHA. I presented myself as an MHA with optimism to
support the people of my district and their interests. Instead, we get the same
old agenda. We are siding with the people in voting against this budget, against
it because it is not reflective of the will of the people of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, I'm
going back to a theme that I started out with, and I'm going to go back to some
of the terms I've heard from both sides of this House with regard to budget
making. Rightsizing, zero-based budgeting, attrition, finding efficiencies and
so on and so forth. I'm going to focus a little bit about education because I
think that, from both sides of the House, we both have to change how we look at
the budget.
I'm
hearing efficiencies, and at the same time I'm saying, well, we need to support
this. We all seem to have our pet project but I'm going to look at education for
a minute from the point of view of budgeting, and the Education Action Plan. Of
course, it's about an investment in education but the devil is in the details.
I always
ask a question about any plan: Is it budget based or needs based? Because as an
educator I believe in needs based, but as an educator I haven't seen needs
based. I've seen more budget based, more finding of efficiencies, more so-called
rightsizing and so on and so forth, and it's always someone else other than the
educator, people in the field who make that decision.
It's
interesting, in 2008 the allocation model there was actually decreasing the
number of students in class size in multigrade classrooms. It actually put a
lower cap on classrooms.
In 2016,
in that budget, we saw the introduction of full-day kindergarten; 142 new
teachers for the position – and I'm going back to this because, again, it's
history repeating itself in many ways. We saw the introduction of full-day
kindergarten, 142 teachers added, but we saw 200 teachers taken out of the
system. Basically, full-day kindergarten was brought in on the back of the rest
of the system.
We had
the introduction of combined grades, which are not multigrade classrooms.
Multigrade classrooms actually increased in size. Combined grades was a creation
to find efficiencies. If it was such an educational novelty and advancement then
we would have been doing combined grades for every school in the province, but
we don't. It was done out of a budgetary need, not an educational need.
We saw
the increase in class size, class caps. So they increased by two – really, they
increased by four from 2008. I'm going to come back to what that class size
means in terms of education, but the soft cap allowed for the addition of
students to a class without really putting any resources in place.
We also
saw the novel educational initiative of the French immersion lottery for
intensive core French, because since the allocations were cut, schools decided
by lottery who got to go into intensive core French. It wasn't merit based. It
was pulling it out of a hat.
I go
back to combining grades. That put an enormous amount of pressure on the school
system because it was up to the school, the administrator, to decide who goes
into that combined grade. That's what a budget does.
Do you
put a group of academically, self-motivated, self-directed students in this
class – there goes the notion of inclusive education right out the door – or do
you combine them? What do you do with – and I coined the term – the leftover
students that Budget 2016 created?
Because it wasn't needs based. It wasn't even zero based, because if I
understand zero-based budgeting you look at what are the needs and you build a
budget to match the needs. It wasn't. It was about finding efficiencies, finding
cuts.
Then, of
course, we had the minister at that time, the novel idea of resourcing
classrooms through scrounging. Now, teachers already did that. God knows, we've
spent enough of our own money, but then to have it come out from the department
at that time to scrounge for supplies, and some of the supplies were quite
significant.
I say
this because it's interesting, how important is education to parties on both
sides of the House? You see, the NLTA had a leader's forum on education during
the election and neither the Leader of the Liberals or the Conservatives showed
up, Mr. Speaker. They showed up to the other major forums but not to education.
That sends a very clear message to teachers, to students, just how important
education is despite the protestations to otherwise.
It's the
second time that the Liberal Leader was not going to show up. The first time was
when I was president of the Teachers' Association. This time, though, both did
not show up. That's a slap in the face. That tells me and teachers, in many
cases, of this province just how important education is when it comes to making
a budget. It wasn't a stunt, as some people on both sides – it's a debate that's
been ongoing, a forum that's there so that teachers and parents and students can
hear what's important.
I go
back to the Education Action Plan, and here's the other thing. It seems that,
depending on what government comes in, one of the ways of getting elected is to
put into the budget that we're going to change education wholesale. We've got to
reform the education system. We've got to make our students better prepared. The
education system is failing our students, failing our societies and so on and so
forth. We've got to change that, and we're going to fix it. How many times in my
career as a teacher have I heard that one?
So you
barely get used to an education initiative before the next government comes in
with a new shiny approach and teachers are put into a tailspin of trying to make
sure that they can get used to a brand new policy. So, I would say this to
whoever forms power: For God's sake, talk to the people who are in the classroom
when you're making a budget, when you're bringing up a plan.
The
Education Action Plan introduces teacher learning assistants. By the way, we
still haven't really come up with a clear definition as to what teacher learning
assistants do and how they're going to fit in. It's sort of an ongoing process.
We have the introduction of reading specialists. We have the introduction of
learning resource teachers and teacher librarians in this budget, and it sounds
great.
There's
a big difference between what the policy is and what reality is. Because, you
see, schools with less than 50 don't get those. What they do get is an increase
in the IRT, or the instructional resource teacher allocations, and a fraction at
that, to make up for that.
That's
the budget. Is it needs based or is it budget based? It's not even zero based.
It's certainly not needs based. I wish I could say that parties on both sides of
the House take a different – they don't.
There's
nothing for the small schools. Student assistant time, needs based, budget
based, zero based; again, if it was zero based you're going to be looking at the
needs of the students in the system and we're going to resource it
appropriately. Yet, in 2018, the NLESD received 418 hours a day less than what
their own program specialists and experts recommended. Think about that.
In the
NLESD we need about 4,002 hours of student assistant time per day to meet the
needs of the students in our system. They didn't pull that number out of the
air. They looked at the needs. They had their specialists look at it and said
here's what we need. Yet, they were budgeted 418 hours less a day. That's not
even zero based. It's not needs based. I don't know what it is, but it's budget
based.
Responsive teaching is the new buzz word, which I consider is good teaching.
Universal design, shiny new words, and one thing I learned in education,
everything old is new again. It's just the same philosophy repackaged in a
different way.
As I've
talked to a few principals, I've said: How's it going with this? It's going well
if the schools make it work. So the schools have to make it work. They have to
find the time for teachers to get together and meet, or the teachers have to do
these meetings after school.
Now,
I'll tell you something, I came into this job and I would say most – I have a
constituency assistant. We have researchers in the office. We have staff. I
would suggest that even that is a little bit less than what we need to meet
needs in the district, but I can tell you a teacher in the school system, they
don't get a constituency assistant. They don't get their own personal secretary.
They have a secretary who is there for the whole school, but if the teacher who
is dealing with something along – I know a teacher in high school, 160 or 140
students that I'm responsible for, the marking, the grading, the meeting with
them and so on and so forth. So you bring in these policies, if you're not
putting the resources there to make it work, it will fail.
An
allocation review was asked for in 2008 and it still has not been done. So we're
putting in educational reform, we haven't even determined how many teachers do
we really need to carry this out. We're going to do the allocation review after
we've done the reform, after we've made things better. Somewhere along the line,
I think we need to look at what are the needs because an allocation would look
at not only the class size but the composition of that class.
My
colleague to the left has referred to the size of this House and the space we
have and you put that into a classroom situation. I would go one step further.
Put 30 or 35 kids into a room where 13, 14 or 15 of them have needs, diagnosed
exceptionalities that aren't being met, try teaching that. You have to put the
resources there.
Our
responses to students who can't self-regulate, basically it's social and
emotional learning, that's great, we're going to put it across the curriculum.
It's not going to solve the problem totally until the class size reflects the
needs in that classroom. You know how I would, when I was president, push to get
the resources, make both the English School District and the Department of
Education listen?
The
teacher would come in, just been attacked by a student, sometimes violently, you
need to file a right to refuse to work. That's what it took to get the resources
in the classroom. That's what it took to, okay, we'll find someone. In all
cases, the principal, the teachers had already filed request upon request for
the extra resources; it fell on deaf ears. Again, that's not zero-based
budgeting, that's not needs-based budgeting, that's about dollars and cents.
So
emotional, social learning will help if you're going to put the resources there,
but if this is about a course across the curriculum and say there, that's done,
wash their hands of that, then I'm afraid it's not going to work. The last round
of collective bargaining made it quite clear where we stood because that last
round of the collective bargaining is going to make it very difficult to attract
highly qualified, highly motivated and the best and brightest to the teaching
profession.
I'll
talk briefly about some of the measures around the environment. I still haven't
looked at in the department as to who is totally responsible for monitoring
industries like aquaculture. I still haven't come away from any of the Estimates
meetings feeling confident that these companies will be monitored, will be held
accountable. Again, are we going to be responding to the needs or is this going
to be about budget.
So, for
me, and I will speak for the NDP, as I've heard here about the budget, it's not
about finding efficiencies. This budget was not of our creation, we had no say
in it as individuals here. We're not interested in the blame game, who's
responsible for what. We've heard that going on both sides here. What we are
interested in is looking at the long game, setting new priorities for the next
budget, the budget after that and the budget after that.
I'll be
upfront what we're after. We want to see measures of a budget that actually
reduces poverty. We want to see a budget that actually is going to better help
the people of our province to get better health care. We want to see better
housing opportunities for those who are most vulnerable. We want to see a decent
living wage. There are workers in this building who are making a little over $11
an hour for cleaning. Folks, if you can make a living on that, let me know
because I don't think you can.
We also
want to see labour relations and labour standards set so that people who are
working and exercise their legitimate right for contract negotiations are going
to be respected. We want to see most of all legislation that protects the
environment.
So, as
we go forward, I can tell you when it comes to budgeting, it will not be zero
based for me unless that is actually truly about needs based. It will be about
needs-based budgeting, what we need. Not zero-based budgeting, not finding
efficiencies, not nickel-and-diming.
My late
brother used to say to me: Poor people like us can't afford to buy cheap. In
some cases, I think that's what we're about here and it's got to stop. We're all
inclined to buy cheap and in the long run it's going to cost us. For him it was
always buy good quality gear now, or buy it four or five times over down the
road.
The same
thing here: invest now in our people, eliminate poverty, increase health
outcomes, take care of those with dental health problems and make sure that
those who need housing are looked after. I think it's investing in society. It's
not investing in a multi-national corporation but investing in our society. I
think that's what we'll be pushing for over the next couple of years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any further speakers to this motion?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Concurrence.
I guess this will be, likely, the last time I'll have an opportunity to speak
before the House closes.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to, I guess, have a few more words about Nalcor and the
Muskrat Falls inquiry, but before I do, I just want to have a few words about
the budget because a few things have come to mind and some points I want to
reiterate here.
First of
all, I want to say that while I just voted for the budget, that doesn't mean
that I don't have concerns. It doesn't mean that the eight points that were
raised by the Official Opposition were not legitimate points, that they weren't
things that we'd all like to see.
This
issue on insulin pumps. I met with the university students on their advocacy day
when they were advocating for the insulin pumps just like the other caucuses did
as well, and I absolutely support it. I think we have to recognize that, up
until this budget, there was no coverage; there was zero. Once you reach 25 you
got nothing. At least now we're making a start.
Now,
would I like to be able to say that someone who turned 25 last year or three or
four years ago should be covered? Do I think they should be covered? Absolutely,
I do. Would I like to see it happen right now? Absolutely, I would, and I hope
that it will happen, but I don't think it's a big enough issue to vote down the
entire budget and, potentially, vote down the government and bring us into
another provincial election. Ultimately, if everyone on this side, all
collectively decide to vote against the budget, that is what would happen. So,
we have to ask ourselves: Do the people want another election? Is this a big
enough issue?
Now,
there are other things that have been asked for like the 1.6 kilometre. I have
that issue in my district, absolutely. I've had many discussions with the
Department of Education. They're tired of listening to me. I got their numbers
on speed-dial over issues around the 1.6 and the courtesy stops and so on. I'd
love to see more changes. I've been advocating for a long time that the 1.6 for
elementary-age children, there should be no zone. They should all get a bus if
they need one, if they're elementary-age children.
I can
remember presenting petitions in this House and lobbying. Again, it's not about
dumping on anybody or going and blaming anybody, but I can specifically remember
presenting petitions to two former Members from the PC Party, two ministers.
They were both from the Burin Peninsula and they were both ministers of
Education, they had a switchover at some point in time. I can remember meeting
with them. I can remember presenting numerous petitions on the 1.6. This is an
issue that's been ongoing. Would I like to see it change? Absolutely, I would.
There
are other things that the Official Opposition put forward in their eight
proposals and so on that I'm sure we would all love to see, but the issue that
we have, and I think it kind of ties into as well, my colleague for St. John's
Centre and some of the issues he's been raising as well, I agree a lot with what
he's saying, too, on education and investment in education. I absolutely agree
but, but – and there is a but – we are billions of dollars in the hole –
billions.
We're
going to spend $1.3 billion this year on servicing the debt – $1.3 billion. It's
the second largest expenditure next to health care, more than what we put in
education, in just servicing the debt alone. That's not counting Muskrat Falls,
that's over and above that – $1.3 billion.
Would I
love to see all these things that was asked for by the Official Opposition?
Absolutely. I'm sure that everyone over there would too. Why wouldn't you,
there're all good things. I'd love to see some of the things that the Member for
St. John's Centre is talking about as well. I agree with him. I got plenty of
schools in my district that are overflowing. I know many teachers and
administrators, I've had the conversations. I've had the conversations with
parents. I understand the challenges of jamming children into a classroom with
this cap and this soft cap and the combining of grades. I had the combining of
grades happen in my district.
Everything that the Member talked about and those challenges, I've had all those
conversations in my district, so I know what he's saying. I know what he's
saying is true. I absolutely agree with him that there are things that have to
be addressed, but, by the same token, we have to be cognizant of where we're
financially. We're literally on the edge of a financial cliff.
We're
told, I don't know, I never did see concrete numbers to show that we would have
been $2.7 billion in the hole. No one ever told me up until like a year later, I
think, when it came out that we couldn't meet payroll or that's what the
government said, after the fact. I don't know if it's true or not. I'm taking
the minister's word for it. I'm not saying that he's not telling the truth, I
don't know but I never saw it. No one told me until after the fact. Assuming
what he's saying is right, and I take him on his word for it, b'ys, we're in a
mess, we really are financially in a mess. So, all of these asks, and they're
all important asks, we got to bare it in mind where we're to financially.
I
support the budget, I do support the budget because, at least, the insurance tax
is going to be rolled back on automobile insurance. That's a good thing. The
levy, which is what landed me on this side of the House, as everybody knows, was
the levy; that was the big one for me. It'll be gone after this year.
Would I
like to see it eliminated right now? Absolutely, I would. Everybody in my
district would love to see the levy gone immediately, but I also understand that
this is tied to the federal government, the income tax system and so on. It's
not just a matter of just picking up the phone and say end the levy right now.
So, even if the government wanted to, there's time associated to making that
happen. After this year it'll be gone.
The gas
tax that we had in 2016, most of that has been rolled back. Albeit we have a
carbon tax, which I personally don't support. I think it's a tax grab. That's
just my opinion, but, nonetheless, 12 cents of the 16½ cents that was put on the
gas tax is gone. Now, the insurance tax on automobiles will be gone and, at the
end of this year, the levy will be gone. Bearing in mind where we're to
financially, I think that's reasonable. Would I like to see more done?
Absolutely, but I think it's reasonable.
I
support the budget from the perspective of what I feel is reasonable, what I
feel is balanced and also bearing in mind that for everybody on this side – I
say again – to vote this budget down means we're going to the polls again and
the people quite clearly don't want that to happen at this stage of the game,
unless there's something serious.
Now,
this doesn't mean the government does whatever it wants, makes any crazy
decisions and comes out tomorrow and say we're going to introduce the levy for
another five years, because if that were to happen, I would absolutely bring the
government down, my vote would. Absolutely, if it was something that I thought
was totally egregious, irrational and not reasonable at all, I would.
What we
see here now is on the balance of things. Are there things I like? Yes. Are
there things I don't like? Some things I'd like to see improved. Do I agree with
a lot of the things that the Official Opposition has brought forward? Do I agree
with what my colleague for St. John's Centre has said about the education system
and about poverty? Absolutely, I do. Should we be working towards those things?
Absolutely, we should, but we have to live in the reality of where we're to
fiscally, financially, we really do.
I
understand my colleagues now in the Official Opposition, they can stand and say:
We voted against the budget so we stood up for the 1.6 and we stood up for
insulin pumps and so on, and the other guys didn't.
Well,
I'm just saying for the record, I support the things that they were pushing for,
and I'm sure everybody does, but we can all play this little game of – because
they all know that, ultimately, as long as somebody else on this side supports
the budget, it's going through anyway, so you get the best of both worlds.
They
don't have the election that nobody wants and you get to be able to say,
politically, oh, I stood up for this and that and I voted against this and I
voted against the budget. I understand the politics around that, but at the end
of the day, from the perspective of the budget, it is fair, balanced, reasonable
in my view, based on where we're to financially, and I will support the budget.
Now, I
have lots of time left, but in the interest of time and the agreement that we
had to try to get through this this morning, I'll just take a minute just to
talk about Nalcor, just for a minute. I got to, just got to. I cannot sit down.
The closing of this House of Assembly after today, I cannot give up the
opportunity to have a couple of words about Nalcor.
What we
have seen come out in this inquiry has been absolutely shocking, disturbing,
disgusting –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Shameful.
MR. LANE:
– shameful, I don't know what
else I can put on it. There are so many things.
I say to
the minister, and I mean this figuratively speaking, of course, heads need to
roll, changes are required, and that organization needs to be purged of those
who may have been deliberately involved in lowballing of numbers and withholding
information and reports and so on. That needs to happen.
I would
also say that once the inquiry is over – and I realize the inquiry has a
mandate, and that mandate is just basically to look at what went wrong, what
could we do to improve things in the future and so on. I would certainly hope
and urge the government that as all the information's coming forward, once that
report is out, if there is anything at all that warrants in any way an
investigation by the authorities, I certainly hope that it will be initiated.
If there
is anything at all that warrants civil litigation, I hope it will be initiated.
There has to be accountability for what went on and the information or the
misinformation that went out to the public, that went out to Members of this
House of Assembly, people who voted to sanction this project based on
information they were given that turned out to be erroneous information.
That has
to be addressed, there has to be accountability, and I certainly call upon the
government, before this is all said and done, to hold those responsible
accountable to this House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
start my remarks, I'm going to say I am a little disappointed with the politics.
Now I enjoy politics as much as anybody else, Mr. Speaker. I'm a career
politician. I've been at this for more than two decades. I enjoy a political
scrap. I enjoy debate.
I'll go
on to my next thought, Mr. Speaker, before I get into some of the comments that
I'm going to make. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands just spoke, and I'm
going to commend him. In addition to commending him, I'm going to commend the
NDP because they put politics aside and looked at a balanced approach. I know
the Member for St. John's Centre just spoke and made some constructive criticism
of government, and I accept that because when you see constructive criticism,
you can work with that.
I've
spoken to Members of the NDP, and they also provide possible solutions. They
look at both sides. I may not always agree with everything they say, Mr.
Speaker, but if it's an approach that's constructive criticism and thoughts
about alternatives or better ways of doing things, that is what this place is
about. That is good debate. So, I commend the Member for St. John's Centre.
The
Leader of his party is an economist and I've had several conversations with her,
and I think she understands how you need to balance both sides and a balanced
approach. I look forward to working with her. I always pay a great deal of
attention when she's on her feet, and I enjoy what she's saying. Again, I may
not always agree with what she's saying, but I enjoy the words she speaks and
the argument she puts forward because I think she understands how the budget
works.
I'll go
back again for a moment to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I may not always agree with what he says, but I think he voted with a
great deal of thought on this budget when he spoke as to why he voted. Yes, I
like the eight ideas that were put forward by the Opposition as well. In fact,
we've talked about them in our caucus long before the election, in fact going
back a couple of years. We talked about these ideas and how we'd like to see
them implemented. They're not new ideas.
Obviously, we'd like to reduce taxes, Mr. Speaker, and we've been doing it with
a balanced approach. Obviously, we'd like to provide more services to the people
of the province and we've been doing that but with a balanced approach. If you
see the reckless spending that took place in 2015 or 2014, 2013, that's what got
the province in the situation that the province is in. That's what created the
fiscal crisis the province was dealing with and that's why taxes had to be
increased.
If
you're going to talk about a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker, real leadership
means that you just don't toss – we'd like to see taxes reduced because we'd all
like to see taxes reduced. Everybody in the province would like to see taxes
reduced. You don't just toss out we'd like to see taxes reduced, now that's our
idea and shame on government because they didn't reduce them enough. That's not
real leadership. I'll talk about real leadership again in a moment.
Saying
that we'd like to see extra services provided to the people of the province, Mr.
Speaker, we'd all like to see more services provided, but doing it without
giving us ideas as to how you do it is not real leadership. Now, the Leader of
the Official Opposition provided us with eight demands. They voted against the
budget because we didn't implement the eight demands.
The
Member for Harbour Main stood in her place and spoke. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will
say that each Member of this Legislature is here because we deserve to be here
because the people chose us to represent them. But she stood in her place and
said it's a minority government so the people of the province spoke and they
want these eight ideas. Well, I knocked on doors as well, Mr. Speaker, something
I enjoy very much, listening to the people in my district. It's the best way to
represent your people. I'll say to all Members, the new Members elected, no
matter what you say or do in this Legislature, it's how you represent your
constituents that will keep you coming back and keep you getting elected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
But I represent every one of
my constituents, Mr. Speaker. Almost 70 per cent of them voted for me but even
the other 30 per cent, I don't say, when somebody calls, which way did you vote.
I represent every one of my constituents. But I'll tell you, it was very
balanced when I went to the doors. Yeah, absolutely, there were people who had
concerns about the taxes that were put in place in 2016, make no mistake about
it. But just as many people – and that's the thing, Mr. Speaker, when you have a
balanced approach, you look at both sides of the ledger.
I
haven't heard anybody on the other side talk about the fact that people were
concerned about the fiscal crisis that the province faced in 2015 or '16, or why
we got to that position. I didn't hear anybody on the other side, Mr. Speaker,
because I heard just as many people at the door. In fact, the province was
pretty much equally divided in this election if you want to look at how they
voted on party lines. And it's not just party lines. I would say that there are
Members on the other side of the House, just as well as there are Members here,
just as well as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands got elected as an
independent. I would say he could've run for us and got elected, he could've run
for the PCs and got elected, and he got elected as an independent. There are
Members on the other side of the Legislature that because of who they are and
what they've contributed to their communities, and their reputation, they
would've got elected whether they were on this side of the House or that side of
the House. Same for many Members in this Legislature. So just because somebody
got elected for one stripe or another doesn't necessarily mean that they
wouldn't have got elected had they run for a different political party.
People
in the province were equally divided. They were just as concerned about the
taxes that were put in place in 2016 as they were about why those taxes were put
in place. Now let's be honest, because that's the truth. If we implemented the
eight items that were demanded by the other side or they wouldn't vote for the
budget, it would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, those hundreds of
millions of dollars, you got to come up with that somewhere because there's no
magic solution that we want to lower taxes, we want to spend more money, these
are our ideas, now you guys figure out how you're going to come up with the
money. That's not real leadership.
So the
eight items that were put forward by the other side, yeah, I'd like to see those
eight items as well. In fact, there are two or three of those items that we're
currently working with and currently trying to implement. But if you want to
have a truly balanced approach, how do you pay for those eight items? Well,
you've either got to cut services – but hang on now, they want to increase
services, part of the eight items – or you've got to increase taxes – but hang
on now, they want to lower taxes. So you can't have it all ways. Lower taxes,
increase services, and you guys figure out how you're going to implement it.
So, Mr.
Speaker, if you want to talk about being truly honest and a balanced approach –
I've heard the Finance critic and the Member for Harbour Main and the Leader of
the Opposition say, oh, the Independent Tax Review Committee said eliminate the
levy. Well, the levy is going by the end of this calendar year. We've also
eliminated, January 1 of this year, the remaining gas tax. We've also eliminated
in this year's budget sales tax on automobile insurance. But they point to the
one thing in the Independent Tax Review Committee, without pointing to
everything else that's in there.
Because
the Independent Tax Review Committee report, which is 28 pages, in two places I
think it references eliminate the levy; the other 28 pages they ignore, because
they don't talk about the people that they knocked on doors – like I said, I
heard both sides of it, concerned about the taxes, but also concerned about why
we got in the situation and don't let it happen again. If we implemented the
eight items, without a plan on how we're able to afford it, guess what? Three or
four years from now, you're going to have to put taxes back in place, 'cause it
got to be paid for.
Now,
what they ignore in the Independent Tax Review Committee report is, in general,
Newfoundland and Labrador's tax system is in line with other Canadian provinces.
No, they won't say that. They'll say we're taxed to death. They won't talk about
the fact that nothing about our brackets or rates or credits or personal
exemptions stands out good or bad, because we are generally in line. Now, those
words were spoken and they're spoken in many places in the Independent Tax
Review. It's repeated again and again and again that we're not out of whack with
the rest of Canada, but they won't preach that because they want people to think
we're taxed to death.
Well,
why were we taxed to death, Mr. Speaker? I'm going to clue up in the next half a
minute or a minute – but why were we taxed to death? Because the province faced
a fiscal crisis. We couldn't make payroll. They were continuing to tell people
of the province there was a $1.1-billion deficit when it was actually closer to
$2.7 billion.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North, and I'm going to be very quick about this, but
last week he took a crack at I voted for – well, actually I didn't for it. You
can go back and look at the two bills. I didn't vote for them because they were
voted on about 3 o'clock in the morning and I was home asleep. I did speak to
them and said I had concerns about Muskrat Falls, but in general I was voting
with my constituents because the surveys that were done at the time, the vast
majority of people in the province thought it was a good project.
MR. LESTER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Now the Member for Mount
Pearl North is yapping at me. If you want to get into a political scrap again, I
can do it. He actually used the words last week, Mr. Speaker, I was duped. It
wouldn't be the first time that Member duped me. Do you want to get into those
details?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LESTER:
You're easily duped.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Let's be honest. He's easily
duped, he said. I guess when you're good at duping, people are easily duped.
The
reality of the fact is the vast majority of people in the province supported
Muskrat Falls based on what they were promised. Based on what was delivered, if
you do the numbers at $2.9 billion and 520,000 people in the province, the cost
of Muskrat Falls is about $25,000 per person – man, woman, child, working, not
working, on income support, taxpayer, not taxpayer. So if you've got an average
household of three people, it's about $75,000 per household. That's not what was
promised.
But
anyway, I'm going to clue up now, because I know we've got an arrangement in the
House to limit our time. I just wanted to say, I commend those who put politics
aside and looked at this as a balanced approach –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
– Mr. Speaker, and I'm
disappointed that politics played a role in this budget debate here today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to get here and to represent the people of
Exploits. I don't need to go any further than my district of the people of
Exploits to make my decision on why I don't agree with the budget.
Mr.
Speaker, while I was going door to door in my district – and I said this in my
previous first speech on the budget, in our area in Exploits the economy has
really dropped. People are really looking for resources. They're looking for
ways that they need employment and need jobs. They need affordable living, and
they have the taxes and the levies. The levy is still there, home insurance is
still there and they can't afford to live.
The
economy there, again, was one of the big issues in the district. Right now
there's nothing there that's going to increase the economy in the Exploits
District. They did have a pellet plant that was supposed to be there in the past
couple of years. That got taken away from them. It did go to the Northern
Peninsula, it's still in this province, and God love it for that that it's still
in this province. The Northern Peninsula and other areas in this province need
the employment as well.
The
Exploits District – and I spoke to every council in the district from Bishop's
Falls, Grand Falls-Windsor, Leading Tickles, Botwood – all the councillors – and
they were highly disappointed that there was nothing replaced when that was
taken away from the Exploits District. Again, yes, they were disappointed in
losing the pellet plant, but there was nothing there to replace that, nothing to
help them, no agreement there to replace what they lost. And that was upwards of
300 workers in that district.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I was down to the Goodwill centre in Botwood. I
spoke to some of the churches that bring in the clothes and donate the clothes
and that kind of stuff, food banks in Grand Falls-Windsor. When the people in
that district have to start relaying on those resources because the economy is
so poor, it will tell you what's happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The big
one again, Mr. Speaker, that I saw was seniors in the district. They were
looking to get into some of the homes; they can't afford it. They feel neglected
that they can't get into those homes and they really want to avail of it but
they can't afford it. They're living in their own homes and they're depressed.
They just don't want to be there.
In
regard to the health part of it, Mr. Speaker, again, I spoke on the Botwood
hospital – and I know the Premier stood there yesterday and said we were going
to get 20 beds in 2019, but 20 beds is not what they wanted. They want the
24-hour emergency service put back. They really spoke to me on that and I didn't
see that in this budget. Mr. Speaker, that was closed by the previous
administration. That word keeps coming up, but now I guess they're in the
previous administration.
Mr.
Speaker, those are just some of the issues that I got going to the door, and
those are the people who helped me make up my mind, listening to the people of
my district. They really want that service because the 24-hour service, I can't
preach it enough that in Leading Tickles and Fortune Harbour, when you have to
drive 1½ hours away to get to a hospital and in the wintertime that turns into
two hours, maybe 2½ hours to get there – especially if it's heart trouble, and
that is the big one that everybody is concerned about. They need to be assessed
at the 24-hour emergency service, to be assessed or treated, and that's what
they really want, especially on the health part of it.
Mr.
Speaker, just before that there was work done on that hospital. There was a new
roof put on there. There was some X-ray equipment put in there. There was
state-of-the-art lab and X-ray equipment put there and new beds. There was a lot
of work put in that hospital, but only have the 24-hour emergency service taken
away, it's poor and the people of that district really don't agree with that
service the way it is, Mr. Speaker.
There
hasn't been any change in the budget to alleviate some of those facts, Mr.
Speaker. Cellphone service, that's another big concern I got into. People down
around the outlining area of Fortune Harbour, some part of Point Leamington and
some part of Leading Tickles, they don't have cellphone service done there.
Wooddale, a great farming place in our Exploits District, Mr. Speaker, there's a
lot of farming happening there, but they have no cellphone service. They got no
Internet services.
I was
speaking to one of the businesses that set up there just probably two years ago
and they have no cellphone service. How are they supposed to run a business?
Even though they are growing their crops, they are doing what they're doing, but
they can't relate to other customers. They can't get their produce fast enough
out of there because they have no cellphone services. We all know what it is for
cellphone service today. That's the way we're connected. We all have them right
here. We're even connected here. So, why can't those people be connected for
doing business in those areas?
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, that's what was brought to me at my doors, the ones I visited.
Those are the people who put me here and those are the people that I'll stand
behind. I won't let the issues go, but as for right now, I'll get a chance over
the summer to talk to my constituents, as I go door to door and different
functions and I'll talk to them again to see how they feel, what they want and
I'll bring those issues again back to the House of Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to take a few minutes, and it's a great opportunity, obviously, to speak to
Concurrence. Yesterday, in Estimates, I had the first time of sitting on this
side. Normally, I had the opportunity to Chair the Resources Committee for the
first three years of my time here in the House of Assembly and had the
opportunity as well to listen from the other side.
I had
the opportunity to share a great morning with both my colleagues, the Member for
St. John's Centre and, obviously, the Member for Bonavista. Both very
knowledgeable when it comes to education; both former educators, former
administrators, former leader of the NLTA and two Members I have whole lot of
respect for and their positions.
Like my
colleague had mentioned earlier, there was a tremendous amount of information
that changed sides yesterday. We didn't stick, necessarily, to the script and to
the text. We broke away and had a great conversation, as far as I was concerned.
I was really happy to take it because, Mr. Speaker, I think every time we have
an opportunity to engage in debate here in the House of Assembly is an education
for us all. That's the way that I take this. I take criticism usually
constructively, and as long as it's given in that manner, Mr. Speaker, I have no
problems with it whatsoever.
With
regard to my department, I want to take a few minutes to provide an overview of
the budget for Education and Early Childhood Development and, actually,
highlight some of the activities for this past year.
The
total gross budget for the department, Mr. Speaker, was $836,307,500. That was
comprised of $1,069,800 for Executive Services; $3,487,800 in Corporate
Services; $771,890,000 in kindergarten to grade 12; and just under $60 million
for Early Childhood Development.
Mr.
Speaker, the Education Action Plan has been the primary focus of our work over
this past year and it will continue to be so for kindergarten to grade 12.
Budget 2019 has increased funding to
support the implementation of the plan by just over $6 million, for a total
budget this year of $13.2 million. This includes $9 million in Teaching
Services; $2 million of professional learning for teachers; $975,000 for other
additional human resources; over a half a million dollars in learning resources;
$238,000 for youth apprenticeships and co-operative education; $180,000 for a
new case management system; and $40,000 in bursaries for teachers to upgrade
math.
Just to
provide more detail in terms of what that means directly in our classrooms, Mr.
Speaker. There are 21 new reading specialists this current year, increasing to
104 over the next two years; 54 teaching and learning assistants hired this
school year, increasing to over 200 over the next two years; and 13.5 additional
teacher-librarians this current school year, increasing to over 39 over the next
two years.
As
mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the budget this year for Early Childhood
Development is just over $59 million. Our work has been guided in recent years
by the Early Learning and Child Care Framework; 22 million was allotted over
three years through this bilateral agreement with the federal government,
supporting approved accessibility and affordability for child care for low- and
middle-income families. More specifically, the funding is supporting and
expanding and enhancing the operating grant programs, changes to the Child Care
Services Subsidy Program and enhancing the Child Care Capacity Initiative.
We're
also improving the quality of Early Learning and Child Care by enhancing grants,
bursaries and professional learning for early childhood educators; establishing
the Capital Renovation Grant and establishing the Quality Improvement Grant
program.
Mr.
Speaker, there's an overall increase in the budget for teaching services for
2019-2020 of just over $1.4 million, and, as noted, we have additional teaching
and learning assistance, reading specialists, learning resource teachers and
English as a second-language teachers.
Mr.
Speaker, we must all strive to do our best knowing that what we do impacts and
can improve the day-to-day lives of our young people in every corner of our
province.
I look
forward to working with the all the staff in the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development, with each of my hon. colleagues in this House and
with the people of my district. I certainly welcome – and I mean that, Mr.
Speaker – all input on our important initiatives as we work on the continued
implementation of the Education Action Plan and our early childhood programs and
services.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for the time and, certainly, I appreciate the opportunity,
always, to stand in my place and bring the good news of the department.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
this opportunity to speak to this.
I
understand the realities of this province, fiscally and such, but also the
realities of the diversity of this province in size and geographics and how we
are all spread out, but what I really want to talk about is Labrador and the
importance of providing services to those communities.
Unlike
the Island, we are very sparsely populated. We don't have our neighbour just
next door. When it comes to between communities, it's over 200 to 300
kilometres. So, improving services to these communities is very important. It's
been a long-standing issue in Labrador about improving services to these small
communities, but we also have to look at community-based solutions that also
take the input of Labradorians themselves because we know our land, we know our
people and we know how we want things done. We also have to look at the ways
that these are all laid out. That's what is really important and I believe it's
a very important issue when it comes to this.
Also, if
you look at addiction services, addictions is a long-standing issue and a
long-standing problem for Labradorians and solutions in the community are ones
that most Labradorians feel is the best approach, to keep people in their
communities when they are dealing with these things. Taking them out of their
communities sometimes causes adverse effects and I think when we have solutions
to addictions, it should be community-based solutions.
We need
to build on communities this way because on top of that, when you look at these
addiction problems, you also look at food security and you also look at mental
health services and all these things. These are all small issues combining into
large issues. It's not just the North Coast or the South Coast, it also includes
East and West, too, when it comes to food security and addiction services. It
all goes hand in hand in the end. When you compile all these issues on top of
each other, it creates a much larger issue and that's where we need to start, we
need to start in the communities.
We also
have to look at unique approaches to these as well. It doesn't all have to be
massive spending and massive costs to the community. It needs to take an
approach that is community based and community driven and community led, and
that's where I stand on that one.
We also
have to look at the affordability of going to Labrador, which also is another
issue that compounds onto other issues. If it takes a lot of money to leave
Labrador and come to Labrador, then sometimes opportunities escape us, and
that's where we need to really look at finding solutions to that problem as
well; affordability of going in and out.
Sometimes an opportunity for a young person to travel and to learn and to
broaden their mind, sometimes gets hampered by the cost of just leaving home.
These are also missed opportunities for our people home because you don't bring
back the expertise and they always want to come home. Labradorians always want
to come home. We have to look at that as a solution, too.
That's
why we have to find ways to work with industry, to work with individuals, to
work with governments and stakeholders to find answers to these solutions.
Sometimes they're not at a massive cost. Sometimes it's just adjustments and
maybe something regulatory, and maybe it also involves bringing competition into
the system to make a more diverse way of travelling.
We have
to keep looking at these opportunities. We have to keep looking at opportunities
for our youth. We need to make sure that they are engaged, make sure that they
are understanding of the issues and we listen to their solutions because
sometimes they're the ones that have the greatest ideas, and I know that for a
fact.
When I
was campaigning, I talked to all three schools in my district, and all three
schools, those students were the brightest minds, they had better questions for
me in debate than I actually had at the chamber of commerce debate. I'll tell
you, they kept me on my toes, those ones did. That's why we have to look at the
youth, too, and listen to what they have to say when it comes to what's going
on.
Do you
know what? They're engaged. They're following all of this. They know what's
going on and we have to listen to them. That's very important. We have to
continue to give opportunities to them so that they can broaden their minds,
especially, home in Labrador. When you give them opportunities, they always come
back.
You look
at down home now, there are a group of tech people who went away to school and
now they're back in Labrador offering technology services in Labrador West. So
this is a whole new industry that can happen at home. That's why we need to keep
encouraging people that do leave to come back with their expertise, because once
we've got that expertise home, it stays home, and that's the most important
thing.
We also
have to look at more affordable ways to look at senior care. If we look at my
district right now, there is no seniors' home. There's not really much for home
care, and long-term care is very small. We need to find solutions to help these
seniors in my community, because it's a new thing.
My
community has only been there since '59. So we never had seniors sticking
around, but now we do. We're at the third, fourth, fifth generation of people in
Labrador West. These people don't want to leave, but there are no options for
them other than to leave; especially when the cost of iron ore goes through the
roof, the cost of housing goes through the roof, and these people can't afford
to stay in very expensive housing that doesn't even meet the needs of their
advanced age.
So we
need to look at ways to accommodate more seniors housing on a level that is
appropriate for seniors. We also need to look at the next stage of it when it
comes to care homes, but also ways to keep them in their home at an affordable
level that they don't have to worry about maintenance and repairs and stuff like
that, that they physically can't do anymore. So we need to find solutions for
that.
I
believe in community-based solutions, where the community is very involved from
start to finish on the solutions, because once you do that, you know what that
community needs. We're a very diverse people. We're spread out over a huge
territory.
The
Minister of Health said it himself, and I agree with him a hundred per cent on
this one. We're a province but we're also a territory. We're actually spread out
like a territory. We have to take solutions from the North to apply here, too,
because they're the ones who are doing it now and we probably have to adapt to
that.
Like I
said, for me to come here, I'm 5,000 kilometres away from home. I live in a
community that is literally by itself, in the woods, next to a mountain. For me
to drive to another community, the next community is Nalcor, which really is a
town, Little Churchill Falls, but it's owned by Nalcor. So it's not really a
community.
The next
one is yours, Mr. Speaker, Lake Melville. Like I said, that's a five- or
six-hour drive. So we're a very diverse, spread out population. So where our
solutions need to come in place is community-based solutions.
I'd also
like to take this opportunity to thank all the Members of the House for a warm
welcome yesterday, and thank you very much for welcoming me here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've
been sitting here this morning, we had our budget debate and we had our budget
vote. I listened to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I listened to some
Liberals across the way there, and what I heard this morning was – I've heard it
a couple of times now – playing politics. If playing politics is representing
the 16,000 bosses I got from Grand Falls-Windsor to Buchans, then so be it.
That's exactly what I'm going to do, because that's exactly what I was voted to
do.
In my
opinion, we were given an excellent opportunity. You can spend millions of
dollars on a study to go through the province and find out exactly what the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador want or need. Arguably, every household,
just about every household in Newfoundland and Labrador was knocked on and
almost everybody was talked to.
Instead
of having a million-dollar study, we got to do this study for free – six weeks
ago, eight weeks ago, 10 weeks ago – when we talked to the constituents, when we
went door to door. And what did the study come up with, the free study that we
saved millions on? They gave us hundreds of ideas. We didn't put hundreds of
ideas across the floor that we wanted for the budget, we put across eight.
We were
told, you know what? Even the staunchest Liberals in my district said if the
Liberals get in, we'd like a minority government. This gives all 40 Members the
opportunity to work together.
This
budget was brought down before the election. The same budget was put to us after
the election, and there are reasons why we didn't vote for it and there are
reasons – those reasons are there was no collaboration, and that's what we felt.
As far as we were concerned, we didn't need those eight items implemented today.
It wasn't said, okay, let's implement those eight items; let's spend more money.
You look
at $40 million spent on Canopy Growth. Arguably, three of the four items
could've been covered in that $40 million. The hospice was $3 million, insulin
pumps, and 1.6 kilometre busing. These are items that could've been covered. We
were looking to get all of it. Yes, we were looking to get all eight items
covered, but if there was a teamwork or collaboration to cover two items, this
would've shown the province that yes, we are here to work together for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, that's passed now and we
didn't get a chance to do it. But make no mistake, our voices were heard today
and we are speaking for our constituents.
Is the
budget bad? Of course not. There are things in the budget that we are thankful
for. I know in Grand Falls-Windsor we're getting a new long-term care facility,
and I couldn't be happier. I'm just as happy as anybody else. So, yes. So we're
not saying that the whole budget is bad by no means.
Our vote
today, in my opinion, was a reflection of the lack of team work, collaboration
and things that could've been done. Like I say, it was an opportunity that was
missed and, unfortunately, it was missed today.
For
anybody talking about we're playing politics, we're not playing politics. We're
speaking for our constituents, and make no mistake, taking down a government,
that's the furthest thing from our mind right now. If the government is to fall,
it's going to be the government's fault, make no mistake about that, because
they refuse to give the proper dedication to working with us and finding better
solutions for what we're looking for.
Just
some of these things out of our eight that we were looking for, for instance.
The hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor, it's something, once again, that's been
years and years of people working towards it. I know that the government also
said that they are going to be committed to it, which is great, but we still
don't know where that money is coming from.
All the
Estimates are done now, all the information is brought forth, so we're still
looking for an answer of where that money is coming from. It wasn't implemented
into the budget, so that's something small that could've been implemented into
the budget one time.
The
1.6-kilometre busing, over and over and over again – why? Because it's so
important. It's very important. Like anything else, Mr. Speaker, sometimes
action isn't required until an accident or a death occurs. Unfortunately, that's
the way things happen sometimes. I guarantee you, if somebody in one of the
Member's districts every get hurt, God forbid, or a child gets hurt, I guarantee
you action will be taken then, but, unfortunately, it's too late at that point.
That's how things work is that no action seems to be taken sometimes until you
get a result like that and that's very, very unfortunate.
The
insulin pumps: Again, there are people, young people with Type 1 diabetes and
these people have to suffer now and dish out $7,000 or whatever it is for an
insulin pump after the age of 25 if they don't meet that deadline. Of course, we
made some progress, which is great. I'm not going to stand here and say that
there was no progress made because there was some progress made, but we wanted
more. We wanted things that we heard at the doorsteps, that we heard from our
constituents and it's not something that we're going to let go.
Child
care is the other one. Child care is huge and, unfortunately, it's the
determining factor for young families if they're going to have a child or not.
Can you imagine? There are people out there that make a decision, a newly
married couple at 25 or 26 years old, they sit down and they say let's discuss
having a child sort of thing. We can't because we can't afford it. I make a good
living. I can take $2,500 or $3,000 a month, which can be a good living. Well,
now, we have to pay out $1,400 a month in child care. That can be a deciding
factor whether to have a first child, second child. Our population is going to
continue to decline because of this, and it's decisions like this that we got to
look at down the road.
Again,
the decision made from this side, and it was an individual decision, this is
something that we all agreed upon, was not to vote for this budget, not because
we hated everything inside the budget but because there was no work. The people
of my district were so elated when they found out that it was minority
government, that we were going to work together. We're going to be forced to
work together. There was no working together whatsoever. That's the reason why
we voted this way today.
Again,
I'm happy that there are certain things in it, but the eight things that we put
forth, the fact that not one of those things – not one of them – were looked at
and said, you know what, guys, we can do this. The people of Newfoundland and
Labrador deserve this. We can find a way of getting this done without an
over-expenditure. Not one item was done, not one, and that is a blatant
disregard, not for us, it's not for us, but a blatant disregard for the people
that we represent, and that's not something that we're going to stand for.
That's
why we stood, voted no on this budget, and let's just say that this is the way
it's going to be. If they choose not to collaborate, if they choose not to work
with us for the people we represent, that's what you're going to get in the
future, and we won't stand for it.
I want
to thank the beautiful people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for voting me in,
you voted me in for a reason, and you are all my bosses, I got 16,000 bosses out
there and that's who I'm going to answer to.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, I would move that we adjourn debate on the Concurrence Motion, and I would
suggest that we recess the House until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
until 2 p.m., consistent with Standing Order 9(1)(b).
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome the Members back for the afternoon part of this day.
We have
no guests that have been identified, so we'll get right into Members'
statements.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we'll hear from the
hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Torngat
Mountains, Placentia West - Bellevue, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Virginia
Waters - Pleasantville, and Corner Brook. The last two of which we'll need to
confirm they have leave.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate a constituent of mine,
Tracy Aspell Coady.
Tracy
was awarded the Hockey NL Executive of the Year Award on Saturday June 8, 2019.
Tracy is a mother of three children who are all very involved in sports. In
2010, she became a member of the Southern Shore Minor Hockey Association. Tracy
has held different positions over the past nine years on the Southern Shore
Minor Hockey Association and currently holds the position of president since
2017.
Tracy is
involved in other organizations such as the Don Johnson Hockey League, the
Interlocking House League, the female under 12 Metro League and NL Triple A
Hockey League.
Based on
Tracy's contribution and dedication to hockey, I could not think of someone more
deserving of this award. Tracy has dedicated so many volunteer hours to the
sport of hockey in the region and is a great asset to the success of hockey in
the District of Ferryland.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members in the House to join me in congratulating Tracy on
the Hockey NL Executive of the Year Award.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, the 2019 Mount
Pearl Focus on Youth Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the great
talent, athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing
youth in my community.
These
individuals included: Mount Pearl Female Youth of Year and S. T. E. M. Award
winner, Sarah Kennedy; Male Youth of the Year, Cameron Kinsella; Youth Volunteer
of the Year, Claire Osmond; Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Max Tavenor; Female
Youth Athlete of Year, Kate Sullivan; Youth Team of the Year, St. Peter's Junior
High grade nine boys volleyball team; RNC Youth In Service Award winner, Michael
Chislet; Youth Group of the Year, Mount Pearl Senior High 2017-2018 student
council; Performing Arts Award winner, Grace Nolan; Visual Arts Award winner,
Megan Fitzgerald; Literary Arts Award winner, Lily Perchard; Official of the
Year, Renee Quick; Adult Volunteer Working with Youth Award winner, May Ann
Hounsell; and Adult Volunteer Working with Youth in Sport Award winner, Trevor
Budgell.
There
were also performing arts recognition awards presented to the cast of
Footloose: The Musical from O'Donel
High, the O'Donel High School Jazz Band, and the cast, crew and band of
Happy Days – the Musical.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these amazing
individuals.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
I rise today to pay tribute
to the Makkovik volunteer ground search and rescue team.
On May
1, an aircraft crashed in bad weather approximately 75 kilometres Southeast of
Makkovik. There were two military aircraft in the area but blizzard-like
conditions prevented the rescue crews from accessing the crash site.
A team
of nine rescuers on snowmobile conducted the search. As the team approached the
site, they left their snowmobiles and climbed. Nearing the plane, they actually
had to crawl the steep slope, protecting themselves from the wind and blowing
snow.
Sam
Rutherford was seriously injured with six broken ribs and a shattered and
compressed sternum. Unfortunately, the second person, Alan Simpson, had
succumbed to his injuries.
I talked
with a rescuer who told me that they took great comfort in being able to rescue
Rutherford, and bringing back Mr. Simpson was good to allow the family closure
in his passing.
Please
applaud the heroic efforts of Henry Broomfield, Errol Andersen, Perry Dyson, Rex
Voisey, Andy Guy Voisey, Perry Voisey, Robert Gear, Roy Martin, Marv Clark and
also a long time ground search and rescue team member and rescue coordinator,
Barry Andersen.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
here today among such wonderful colleagues to speak of a great woman. She has
been among us for the past year or so, and I feel it's a great honour to tell
you of her most recent accomplishments.
Ms.
Alden Spencer is from the great District of Placentia West - Bellevue and she is
one of the House's Pages. Ms. Spencer is a well-rounded individual as her
four-page resume will tell you. Her community involvements are vast and range
from being a sea cadet, to a dancer, to a brand ambassador, to a blood donor.
Most
recently, Mr. Speaker, she has just convocated from Memorial University with
honours and Bachelor of Arts, majoring in political science and minoring in
history.
She has
been awarded the highest award offered by the University of New Brunswick school
of law, the Lord Beaverbrook Scholarship. It is the faculty's most prestigious
award and recipients are chosen from those with qualities suggesting attainment
of distinction in the legal profession. They are at the top of their
undergraduate program with solid LSAT scores.
Mr.
Speaker, Ms. Alden Spencer is an extraordinary woman. I ask that the Members of
this great House rise to join me in wishing Ms. Spencer congratulations on her
achievements and wish her much success in her future endeavours.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Well done.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, there is rarely a dull moment for volunteer firefighters and first
responders throughout the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
A
waterfalls swimming hole in Spaniard's Bay, known as the Gorge, was the location
of some intense moments yesterday evening. A group of young teenagers hiked to
the falls but, before long, a 13-year-old boy fell and sustained significant
damage to his leg. The kids knew they would need help in getting their friend
out of the woods in order to receive medical attention.
A call
was made to the ambulance, the RCMP and to the volunteer fire department of
Spaniard's Bay-Tilton. Before the firefighters could reach the boy, they also
had to hike through the steep, wooded area. First aid was needed and it was
determined that even more assistance would be required.
The
Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue were also on hand but, given the
steep, wooded terrain, it took a search and rescue helicopter stationed out of
Gander to maneuver above the Gorge and to repel the young man up. He was then
airlifted to the Janeway hospital where he received treatment.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the volunteer firefighters of Spaniard's
Bay-Tilton and all first responders for their outstanding dedication and
professional service.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, who needs to seek leave first.
MR. DAVIS:
I'd like to seek leave to
make a Member's statement.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm
very excited to stand in this hon. House to recognize the fantastic
accomplishment of one of my constituents, Mr. Alex Newhook.
An alumnus of Vanier Elementary, Alex left home at 14
to attend boarding school to develop his hockey skills against higher levels of
competition. The dedication and commitment to his craft allowed him to be named
the MVP for the Canadian Junior Hockey League. Being named the best player out
of some 2,000 players from 10 different junior leagues is quite an
accomplishment.
This season, Alex led the BC Hockey League with 102
points. He has also
represented Canada at the world junior under-18 hockey championships and was
their leading point-getter. This past Friday, Alex was selected 16th overall in
the first round of the 2019 NHL Entry Draft by the Colorado Avalanche, the first
Newfoundlander and Labradorian to be drafted in the first round since the great
Danny Cleary in 1997.
I know
all of my constituents in Virginia Waters - Pleasantville will join me in
congratulating the Newhook family, Shawn, Paula, Abby and Alex. This is a
testament to the passion and commitment that the entire family has made to help
Alex achieve this significant accomplishment.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Alex and his entire family, and
wish him the best in all his future endeavours.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Corner Brook, who also needs to seek leave.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, under two very
different circumstances, today I recognize two incredible individuals. First,
and with great regret, I must inform the House of the passing of a member of the
Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, musician, musical educator, community leader
and treasured adopted son of Corner Brook. On Monday, Gary Graham succumbed to
cancer.
Recognition of his accomplishments ranged from an Honorary Doctorate from
Memorial University, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the personal
satisfaction of a message inscribed on a handwritten thank-you card from one of
his students who went on to perform with one of the continent's most prestigious
symphonies and attend one of the continent's most prestigious music schools.
Doctor G's blindingly beautiful legacy will shine as brightly as his musical
talent.
On a
happier occasion, this Saturday family and friends gathered for the 100th
birthday celebration of World War II veteran, community pioneer and a great man,
Robert Grant of Corner Brook.
Mr.
Grant served in the 166 Newfoundland Field Regiment, taking him into active duty
in North Africa and in Italy. Today, an active member of Branch 13 of the Royal
Canadian Legion, he resides at the Veterans Pavilion of Western Memorial
Regional Hospital, pleasantly keeping the nurses and attendants on top of their
game. With the energy of a 22-year-old still, and still sharply dressed and with
full medal decorations on display, he represents Corner Brook's wonderful past,
present and future.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to rise and join with me in celebrating one life
cut too short, and another who thankfully continues to bless us. Happy 100th
birthday to Robert Grant of Corner Brook.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
truly an honor to rise today in this House of Assembly to congratulate students
from this province whose group, Paradigm Hyperloop, will soon be competing at
the SpaceX Hyperloop Competition in California.
With the
support of the provincial and federal governments, the students from Paradigm
Hyperloop are working on a ground mode of transportation with speeds of over 450
kilometres per hour.
This
will be an incredible experience and opportunity for these students. Past
student participants have leveraged this experience to give them employment
opportunities at such firms as Tesla and Google, while others have created firms
right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I invite
all hon. Members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the
students from Paradigm Hyperloop and wish them the best of luck in this
competition.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. minister across for an advance copy of your statement. Myself, along
with my colleagues on this side of the House, are certainly in the same loop as
the minister in congratulating the Paradigm Hyperloop team.
Over the
past number of years, our post-secondary students have achieved national and
international success in many technical and academic competitions. This has
caught the attention of the world as leading employers have come to the province
looking for first-class talent for their respective organizations.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me again in congratulating the Paradigm Hyperloop team
and to wish them the very best of luck at the SpaceX Hyperloop Competition in
California.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to the
students of the Paradigm Hyperloop team on their successes to date, and I wish
them the best of luck as they head to this year's SpaceX Hyperloop Competition
in California.
I've
seen the pod from the last competition in the faculty entrance and I recommend
everyone go, and I know that we have world-class educators and researchers who
are preparing these students for their competition. I'm proud to see them return
to the global stage so they can once again showcase to the world what our
province and our students are made of.
I
commend the team on their innovation and perseverance, and I wish them continued
success in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the
last day of school in our province and I am honoured to rise in this hon. House
to congratulate more than 66,000 students on a successful school year. I also
extend my gratitude to the teachers, administrators and staff who work hard
every day to provide safe, productive and inclusive learning environments for
our children and youth.
This has
been a productive year for our students, educators, the department and the
implementation of the Education Action Plan. In less than a year, close to 40
per cent of the actions have been completed or are substantially under way. The
plan, which guides actions to implement the recommendations from the Premier's
Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes, will result in a strengthened
education system that is more responsive to the needs of students.
This
year, 40 schools participated in the Phase 1 implementation of a new student
services model to improve the education experience for students throughout the
province. An additional 40 schools have been selected for the 2019-2020 school
year.
Budget 2019
has increased funding to support the implementation of the plan by just over $6
million, for a total budget this year of $13.2 million. That includes $9 million
in teaching services and $2 million in professional learning for teachers.
Mr.
Speaker, through the Education Action Plan, we are providing an educational
environment that prepares students for lifelong learning and future academic and
career opportunities.
I invite
my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating students,
educators, staff and administrators who have worked diligently throughout the
school year and in wishing them a safe and enjoyable summer break.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, join the government in
congratulating the more than 66,000 students on another successful school year.
We hope that their hard work will result in good marks that they can enjoy all
summer long.
We hope
that the many teachers, assistants, substitutes and school staff will also enjoy
their summer after another year of doing one of the most important things we do
as a society, ensuring the education of our next generation, developing lifelong
learners.
Mr.
Speaker, we continue our call on the government to do all that it can to
continue to improve our education system. Our graduation rate is still too low.
Our math, science and literacy scores still fall below the national average. Too
many recommendations from the Premier's task force report – some-60 per cent –
are still unfulfilled, and teaching staff are left concerned that they may lack
the necessary resources to fulfill them.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Action plans
work because teachers work hard to make them work for their students.
The most
valuable resource any action plan can give a teacher is time. Time to work with
students individually; time to plan; time to meet with teachers and parents;
time to respond to the needs of students, and that means a needs-based
allocation model.
I join
with the minister and Members in thanking students, parents, teachers, staff and
administrators who worked hard throughout the year and in wishing them a safe,
enjoyable and relaxing summer holiday.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the government
ran on this election budget on which the House voted today, but the electorate
gave the budget a vote of non-confidence by returning a government with a
minority.
Why did
the Premier refuse to make adjustments to the budget to reflect the priorities
he heard from the electorate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind everyone once again that the budget we introduced to the House of
Assembly, and, indeed, to Newfoundland and Labrador an April 16, was the exact
budget that we put in place.
I just
want to remind people who are watching today that it was the Leader of the
Opposition who said that this would not be the budget that we introduced, and we
consistently said that we did.
There
are a lot of good things in this budget. Mr. Speaker, it's balanced. It puts us
on a track to a balanced budget in '22-'23, Mr. Speaker. The initiatives, that
I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition has a letter that he wrote to me, some of
those – many of those initiatives, I would say, almost all eight of them, are
issues that we are currently work on and in varying degrees of implementation.
Let's
remind the people of the province that the Leader of the Opposition, when I
asked him to cost up those eight, he could not do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the exchange of discussion revolved around not increasing the
spending of government.
In view
of the Premier's attitude, I would ask the Minister of Finance: Can we expect an
invitation to collaborate on creating the 2020 budget, and will he provide us
with the information necessary to help him make an informed decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, in the preamble
there, and I want to address this because the letters that were going back and
forth between the Leader of the Opposition and myself – the Leader of the
Opposition mentioned areas where they needed to find efficiencies. Well, that is
really code to the people of our province: cuts. We all know that when we look
at a budget like this, one area that we would not want to cut is things like
education and, of course, health care.
Mr.
Speaker, when I asked the Leader of the Opposition if he would outline what
those efficiencies would be, or cuts, he would not do so. So it was very
important to work in collaboration with a Leader of the Opposition who would not
even give us a clear idea of where it is he wanted to go. That's all we were
asking for.
Mr.
Speaker, we are more than willing to collaborate with all 40 Members of this
House of Assembly, and we will do so as we start budget preparations for
'20-'21.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm looking
forward to the creative terminology that we'll be treated to, no doubt, as the
government moves closer to its balanced target which we're told requires savings
of $617 million by that year.
Consultation is more than saying my door is open and send me your ideas. True
collaboration is sitting down with us, giving us all the information that
Cabinet has and evaluating the options with us.
Will the
Minister of Finance commit to holding multiple collaboration meetings with the
PC caucus representatives in advance of budget 2020, and when will these take
place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
agree, collaboration is more than just fancy words and so on. It's very clear
that if you want to make a submission to a budget process you should come with
the amount of money or the budget that you would see that is required.
Mr.
Speaker, clearly, that did not happen in this last round. Hopefully, when the
Leader of the Opposition comes with proposals – and we will make room for that
collaboration – it would come with an expense that he would see, or the cuts
that he would be proposing that they would be attached to. Clearly, that was
missing from the last round, in the last letters that were back and forth. So
these are the expectations on all of us.
If you
have an idea, if you want to cut something, let us know where it is you want to
cut. At least let us know the department that you're looking at.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Does she agree with the
government officials and the consultant who testified at the Muskrat Falls
inquiry that it's too late to prevent the rising of methylmercury levels?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
methylmercury, that file has been a priority for this government.
The
health of the residents in that area, I can tell you, is a priority. A number of
us were a part of that meeting in October 2016, that 12-hour meeting. Since that
time, a lot of work has been done, working with our Indigenous partners, and
more than 1,200 samples are posted online. It's there for anyone to see.
The
methylmercury levels are extremely low. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in
most of the samples the levels are too low to detect, but it's certainly a file
that remains a priority. We have a first-class monitoring program, the design of
which was supported by all of the Indigenous groups on the IEAC committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I just
had to look and see where the Minister of Natural Resources was sitting because
I did point the question out to her. The next question I point out is, tomorrow,
the Minister of Natural Resources –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. EVANS:
– will testify at the Muskrat
Falls inquiry.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: If asked, will she say that it's too late for
wetland capping?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to
the people of the province again, our priority is to ensure that we protect the
health of the residents and that we do what we can. As I said in my first
question, the IEAC applauded the water monitoring plan that we have in place. It
is one of the best plans that's out there; more than 1,200 samples to date, very
low or below the level of detection.
Mr.
Speaker, this is important to us as well. The health of the people in Labrador
that reside close to that project, that's a priority for me as Labradorian –
forget my MAE hat and forget my MHA, it is important, Mr. Speaker. I think it is
probably important that I remind the hon. Member during the IEAC not all of the
members agreed to the soil removal. In fact, there was indications that
(inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your
time has expired.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
mitigation, there are only so many levels of mitigation that's being put
forward: One was capping and one was soil removal. They couldn't get everyone on
board with soil removal. The option left to them was capping. Now we're told
during testimony at the Muskrat Falls inquiry that capping, to be effective,
would have actually started earlier, Mr. Speaker. So it's basically too late.
The
issue of methylmercury mitigation was never taken seriously by this Liberal
government. With a revolving door of ministers in Municipal Affairs and
Environment, they procrastinated making the decision until it was too late. It's
now too late. The Minister of Natural Resources has been in her post for the
duration of this time. I ask the minister –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MS. EVANS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I think it's
important that the people of the province understand that soil removal of this
magnitude have never been attempted anywhere else in the world. As I mentioned
in my second answer, there is some scientific evidence to indicate that going
down that road, should we have chosen to, would actually elevate levels of
methylmercury. That's not what we want to do. We had an IEAC that was put in
place and that committee, they did not all agree, but they actually applauded
the design of the water monitoring.
What I
say to the hon. Member and I've been around this House for six years, the only
reason we are dealing with this problem is because we had Muskrat Falls where
the Joint Review Panel was kicked out, Mr. Speaker, nobody got to finish the
work, the homework was not done upfront and we are doing our best to find our
way through this (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
District of Terra Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, it's been over a
year now since the Shoal Harbour causeway in Clarenville was closed to two-way
traffic after failing a structural engineering assessment. Despite numerous
meetings and letters, the minister has refused to accept any responsibility for
the bridge.
Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister expect the Town of Clarenville to pay millions of
dollars for a bridge they don't own?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the Member opposite if he wants to go back about 12 or 14 months ago, it's quite
clear that the Department of Transportation and Works does not own this bridge.
We actually brought it to the Department of Justice for an opinion, Mr. Speaker.
The opinion is consistent.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Town of Clarenville thought we owned this bridge, why did they
make an application for municipal capital works? Mr. Speaker, this bridge is not
the property of the Department of Transportation and Works.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, there is no
written transfer agreement or legal contract that specifies the causeway was
ever transferred from the province to the town. In fact, a former Liberal
minister of Transportation and Works stated in September 1995: We have no
interest in transferring infrastructure to the council which will result in the
council encountering unreasonable maintenance costs.
Why is
the minister refusing to do the right thing, sit down with the Town of
Clarenville and work out a solution?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Well,
the fact is the Town of Clareville has been doing the maintenance on this bridge
since 1995. This bridge is not within the jurisdiction of the Department of
Transportation and Works. This bridge was part of a transfer agreement like we
see around the province all the time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is the Town of Clarenville has been doing some work on
this bridge with the Department of Municipal Affairs which, rightfully so, is
where it belongs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, if this bridge
was transferred in 1995, like the minister says, why would they do an inspection
in 1997 and deem the bridge due for replacement in 2014?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
If the
Member opposite were to do his research, he would know that we do bridge
inspections every two years, Mr. Speaker. So if this a bridge that we were
responsible for –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROCKER:
– Mr. Speaker, we would have done this in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. It's very
clear here, Mr. Speaker, where this bridge belongs and it belongs within the
jurisdiction of the Town of Clarenville.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, this a piece of
regional infrastructure used by thousands of commuters and tourists daily, as
well as commercial traffic and Transportation and Works. An outright closure of
the causeway would be devastating to the businesses and commerce of the entire
region, not to exclude the fact that Transportation and Works would have to go
all the way around the Trans-Canada Highway to get to areas they're responsible
for.
Mr.
Speaker, will the minister convene a face-to-face meeting with all of the
communities and stakeholders to find a way forward before the next construction
season?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, the conversation that needs to be
had here, and the conversation I believe that's been had is with the Department
of Municipal Affairs and Environment. The reality here is this outside the
jurisdiction of Transportation and Works. We have these circumstances happen all
around the province. Once we transfer a road, Mr. Speaker, that road is
transferred. The responsibility to the road is transferred, maintenance and
capital upgrades.
Mr.
Speaker, I would encourage the Member opposite to take up this issue with the
Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, as they're the funding arm for
this type of infrastructure work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, during the
election the Premier committed to restoring 24-hour emergency service in Botwood
at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Centre.
I ask
the Premier: Will he reaffirm his commitment to restoring this important service
to Botwood?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
issue around 24-hour services is predicated on staffing with the new protective
care unit wing at the Hugh Twomey Health Centre in Botwood. That will not come
on stream until 2021. Only then will be know, (a), the number of staff available
and their work allocation and workload and, (b), the demand in the district for
out-of-hour services. At that point, a decision will be made, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
When the minister was asked, he was evasive in his answers. The minister said: I
think it's definitely going to be examined and that there's no guarantee in life
about this, any of this. Also, in Estimates, he said a decision would not be
made until 2021.
I ask
the Premier: Will he direct his minister to honour his campaign promise to the
people of Botwood to restore 24-hour emergency service?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
believe I was quite clear in my initial answer just to the House, and it's
consistent with previous comments. In 2021, the staffing levels at the Hugh
Twomey will be known, as will the workload out of hours at the Hugh Twomey
Centre. If there is a need for a 24-hour service at that stage, we will
certainly look at it, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Mr. Speaker, on June 11, I
asked the minister where the money will come from to fund the Lionel Kelland
Hospice. The minister said – and I quote: “The exact flow of money through the
system, as it were, is a matter for the Estimates Committee. I'd be happy to
deal with that there.”
Now,
that the Estimates Committee have concluded, will the minister advise the House
where the money will come from for this hospice?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
On the
Member opposite's behalf, the representative from the PC Party at Estimates
asked that question and I delivered the answer to him on that occasion.
There is
capital allocation within the regional health authorities and there is operating
funds available for end-of-life care through federal transfers. At the time that
we receive a more concrete proposal from the Lionel Kelland Hospice board, with
whom we have met recently or at least officials have met, at the time we get a
concrete proposal, we'll know exactly what the price ticket is, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
I thank the minister for his
answer and, again, I thank him for the commitment.
Central
Health reported a deficit of $4.5 million at March 31, 2019. The Minister of
Finance has said that they will work with Central Health to find the operating
money.
Given
the financial position of Central Health, will Central Health be expected to
find the money?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of the RHA deficits is always close to our hearts at this time of the
year.
We will
be meeting with the boards. Ultimately, the RHA deficit rolls up into the
deficit of government and is funded through the votes that we have just passed
in the budget, against which the Member opposite voted not in favour, but
against. We will be in negotiations with the RHAs to stabilize their finances in
the near future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I didn't
see hospice inside the budget itself and that's one of the reasons why we voted
against.
Mr.
Speaker, the Newfoundland construction season has virtually ground to a half
after the snap election, and the lack of permanent minister has paralyzed the
department for over two months. Municipalities and contractors have been left
standing by waiting for tenders to be called and awarded.
Can the
minister update this House on where the department is finally going to get
shovels in the ground?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm going to have to ask the
hon. Member to ask the question again, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
The Newfoundland construction
season has virtually ground to a half after the snap election, and the lack of
permanent minister has paralyzed the department for over two months.
Municipalities and contractors have been left standing by waiting for tenders to
be called and awarded.
Can the
minister update this House on where the department is finally going to get
shovels in the ground, please?
MR. SPEAKER:
We'll try the minister again.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
Member knows it's been a long week. We were here until pretty late last night in
the House answering questions in Estimates. We had a great four hours there.
As we
discussed last night in the House, there are a lot of moving parts in the
Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment. I think it's 547 projects that
we have moving through the system. There are tenders going out all the time and
there's an approval process that's ongoing.
What I
tell the hon. Member is, if it's not out the door, it will be out the door very,
very soon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, we are well into the road construction season and there has been very
few tenders announced by the minister. Municipalities and contractors have
blamed the recent election for the seemingly two-month pause.
Can the
minister update the House on his department's plan to get work started ASAP?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Wow, Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. Member for the question. He should really check his information.
If you
go and look at our Roads Plan, Mr. Speaker, the roads project that we announced
in January has all been tendered. Mr. Speaker, our early tendering has been very
successful. I believe, right now, we are into some northern and rural approvals,
Mr. Speaker, but I believe we've expended somewhere close to 90 per cent of our
budget so far this year.
I would
encourage the hon. Member opposite to do some more research if he wants to talk
about the tenders for Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker. It's been this
government that has brought in early tendering that has been so successful in
our five-year Roads Plan, Mr. Speaker. It's hailed by the construction
association. We get our tenders out early.
In
actual fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the tenders he refers to were actually called
last fiscal year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the salaried physician budget is reduced by $3.5 million in budget
'19-'20.
Does the
minister have targets to reduce the number of doctors in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We have
a considerable increase in physicians, year upon year. The mode of payment is a
matter of individual choice between fee for service and salaried.
The line
adjustments that the Member opposite refers to are savings from locums, i.e.
replacement physicians who come in on a short-term basis. I would suggest that's
indicative of an improvement in physician supply at the specialist level and
nothing worse.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister stated in Estimates that the salaried physician approval
committee will decide what physician positions will be filled and that there is
a rationalization of physicians.
I ask
the minister: What criteria is he using to determine what salaried physician
positions will be filled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Once
again, the mode of compensation of a physician is entirely a physician's choice.
Traditionally, what has happened is the salaried physician approval committee
will look at the physician or a post fee-for-service billing to ensure there is
sufficient work there to justify a salary. If there is, a salary will be found
and the money transferred to the salary budget from fee for service.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we are constantly hearing about a shortage of family physicians
throughout the province.
I ask
the minister: How many doctors does he plan to reduce to achieve the budget
reductions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Memorial
University and its family medicine program stands out in the country as one
which is the most successful, or among the most successful, at retaining
homegrown graduates at 10 years. Our retention rate is anywhere between 40 and
60 per cent.
The
number of family doctors in this province has increased year on year and we
continue to supplement them with nurse practitioners where appropriate. The
advent to primary health care teams will reduce their workload and increase
access, Mr. Speaker.
There
are no planned reductions in physician numbers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, it's a line item
in the budget that there were going to be cuts to the salary units, yet there
will be no lost of doctors. That's good to hear. We'll see the numbers next
year.
Mr.
Speaker, today, NAPE issued a release of ambulance red alerts in areas serviced
by Eastern Health. The president of NAPE said: These numbers are staggering and
the truly frightening thing is it appears to be the situation is worsening.
I ask
the minister: What specific actions is he taking to address the rise of
ambulance red alerts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The red
alerts from the ambulances in Eastern Health fall into two categories. The most
severe are level one, they are actually covered off with a collaborative
arrangement within metro between St. John's, the regional health authority and
the St. John's Regional Fire Department. So, treatment arrives, even though
transport may be delayed.
We have,
however, a significant initiative through Eastern Health to improve the
availability of RHA ambulances and I'm sure we'll be in a position to make an
announcement about that come the end of the summer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, there was an
alarming 341 red-alert incidents in 2017, the number increased to 460 in 2018.
There've been 156 red alerts in the first quarter of this year alone.
I ask
the minister: Why are the amounts of ambulance red alerts increasing and what
are you doing to address this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
second part of the question is answered by my previous answer. Eastern Health
have, in actual fact, increased the number of rigs on the run over the course of
the last year. We have a significant initiative through Eastern Health which
will reduce the demand on that frontline ambulances and reduce, if not abolish
completely, red alerts.
The
announcement will be forth coming towards the end of the summer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we've been asking questions about the North Spur stability for days. We
are not getting clear answers. Despite Nalcor's assertions, Hatch engineers did
not review or approve SNCs work on the North Spur design, as well SNC used
outdated calculations that would not have predicted the Mount Polley dam
disaster.
I ask
the minister: With so much on the line, why won't she allow an independent
expert geotechnical review of the North Spur before impoundment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, I
will say that this is an important issue for the people of the province, in
particular those that surround the Churchill River, and we take this very
seriously. There have been over 30 different reviews of the North Spur. There
have been multiple engineering firms that have done multiple tests. I named some
of them yesterday, I won't name them again today.
We're
going to do everything that we must do to ensure dam safety. It's obviously
incredibly important. SNC-Lavalin is the engineer of record. They had to sign
off on their designs. It was reviewed. The stabilization of the report has been
reviewed multiple times by multiple different groups, engineering firms, and all
of this is also ensuring it's under the Canadian dam safety regulations.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Norway,
Iceland, Scotland and Nova Scotia have updated their salmon aquaculture
regulations to better protect the environment. DFO is also developing tighter
regulations; yet, Newfoundland ranks second last in North America in terms of
legislation that protects wild salmon from open net-pen farming.
I ask
the minister: Will he review our aquaculture legislation and codes to ensure
they are legally enforceable and equal to the best practices for protecting wild
stocks and marine environments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The hon.
Member will know, if he reflects on some of the matters that have been put
forward to the public record, this government initiated that process months ago.
When we
announced our Way Forward on aquaculture, developing our aquaculture industry
for the benefit of the province, harmonizing, creating a sustainable resource, a
sustainable industry for jobs in rural areas of our province while protecting
our environment, what we said at that point in time was that we were going to
engage in a regulatory review to make sure that we engage in best practices.
I am so
proud of our industry. We're already using best practices, but, Mr. Speaker,
this is all about getting even better, and that's exactly what this province and
this government is all about. We will perform.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, the province is
currently down a water bomber due to an incident last summer. The remaining
aircraft are being rotated, leaving some forests in Lab West without adequate
protection at times.
I ask
the Minister of Transportation and Works: How long until the damaged aircraft is
repaired or replaced?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question.
First
and foremost, Mr. Speaker, what we've done for this coming season is we work
with the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources to ensure we have adequate
water bomber service throughout the province. So what we'll be doing this summer
is rotating the water bombers based on the expert advice we would receive from
FLR.
Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the condition of the current water bomber, that's still
undergoing some assessment. I'm more than happy to update the Member when we
have further information on the repairs to the current water bomber.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
you stated on many occasions that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards was
independent and you never interfered with his work. I have confirmation that
your letter of April 26, 2018, was a request for opinion under section 36 and
the Commissioner was consulted. This is inconsistent with your statement of May
3, 2018, in this House.
In your
letter of May 31, 2019, you stated: I can confirm there are limited occasions
whereby my office contacted the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. The
Commissioner's independence has been compromised.
Premier,
how can you say you never had no involvement in the process when documentation
proves otherwise?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
That
question has nothing to do with the administrative and fiscal responsibility of
the Executive. I rule the question out of order.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
each passing day at the Muskrat Falls inquiry, we hear more disturbing testimony
regarding the low balling of numbers and the withholding of information from the
government and the public; yet, nobody seems to be held accountable. We know
that the Commissioner has no mandate to recommend any criminal investigations or
civil litigation relating to this matter.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Once this inquiry is completed, will you
ensure there is a full review of the evidence presented at the inquiry and, if
warranted, will you commit to engage with the authorities and/or legal counsel
to ensure accountability for the decisions that have been made over the course
of this project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. It's a topic that he's brought
up on numerous occasions and I appreciate that he does so.
As the
minister responsible for convening all commissions of inquiry, including the one
regarding Muskrat Falls, what I can say is that the mandate for all is the same.
It is not the responsibility to determine criminal or civil liability. However,
what I can say is if criminal liability was something that came up during this
inquiry, it's something that the RNC would be keeping an eye on or the RCMP.
It's obviously something. Whenever there is criminal activity or anything of
that nature, that's something they would keep an eye on.
Again,
we don't want to predetermine what comes out of this inquiry. What I can say is
of all the decisions that we've made in government, this is certainly one we're
very proud of.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Time for
Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
accordance with the Transparency and
Accountability Act, it's my pleasure to table the 2018 annual report for
Nalcor Energy and the 2018 annual report for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
stand today to table the 2018 annual report for the Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
I have
two. In accordance with section 18 of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I am
advising the House that the members of the Management Commission are: the
Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Third
Party, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Member for Conception Bay South,
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Speaker, and the Clerk.
Also, in
accordance with subsection 38(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I am
tabling the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards dated June 25,
2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice, and by leave, move the following motion. That Ms. Sarah Stoodley replace
Mr. Elvis Loveless as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday in Question Period, the Opposition Health critic, the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, made some inquiries about concerns about
prostate-specific antigen testing. I have checked with the provincial laboratory
service and Eastern Health. There have been no changes to whom can order that
test, and the same criteria for that are in place, as have been for the last 20
years.
So if
the Member opposite has a specific concern of a clinical nature, I would be
happy to guide him as to where he might take it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further answers?
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, and Children, Seniors and
Social Development – I'm not sure where she's going.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon.
Member for Terra Nova was asking some questions about the bridge, and I just
wanted to tell him that my department have been working with the town. I don't
know if he's talking to the town, but we're working with the town. They're going
to apply on the next round of applications.
As we
continue to improve our efficiency, Mr. Speaker, our next round of applications
we hope to be out in July.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the eastern school district's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS policy
cannot override the safety of our children;
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
eliminate the 1.6 kilometre policy for all elementary schools in the province
and in junior and senior high schools where safety is a primary concern.
This is not the
first time this has been raised. It's been raised by a number of Members and
colleagues; in particular, my colleague from Conception Bay South.
This is a safety
issue. We do understand there are some adjustments made with courtesy busing and
courtesy stops, but it's certainly very much inadequate for dealing with this
issue. This is clearly a safety issue for our children.
School is getting
out tomorrow. They will be let loose for the summer, and next fall we really
want to see something done for the people of the province and very much in
particular our youth. Our youth are our biggest resource, our most valuable
resource and safety should be paramount.
Thank you.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank
you.
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.
MR. WARR:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon.
Member for his petition. Certainly, I'll agree with the hon. Member, safety is
paramount for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. We treat it very
seriously within the department, and I can assure the Member that I will
continue to – we're using this as a balanced approach. We had 70 courtesy stops
back in September, Mr. Speaker. To date, we have 649.
I think we're on
the right track and, hopefully, we'll continue to improve the policy.
Thank you.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank
you.
Further
petitions?
The hon. the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
The government
now requires regional health authorities to strictly enforce a policy that
requires all applicants being assessed to have a physical care need to qualify
for admission to a personal care home. Seniors with issues such as anxiety,
depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no longer eligible. Many seniors
who would have qualified just months ago are now being denied access.
THEREFORE we
petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to revise
the policy on personal care home access.
Mr. Speaker, this
is the first time I have spoken to this, but I have received several petitions.
It is something that I've had personal care homes in and around my district that
I have visited and I have relationships with who have contacted me about this. I
know other Members have also been contacted as well from personal care homes in
their areas.
Something has
changed, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister says nothing has changed, but I can
guarantee you that something has changed. Up until now, I don't
think there was ever such a
thing as level zero, for example. There was always Level 1, 2, 3. Now there's
this level zero. Of course, when the minister says we're taking into account
mental health and so on, I'm not saying there's no accounting for it.
The
reality of it is that in the past, if you had a senior, for argument's sake, and
let's say their spouse passed away, and you had a person living in their home
and they were up in age and they were afraid at nighttime, afraid to be there by
themselves. They could fix a meal but they found it difficult to fix a meal.
They could do the laundry but found it really hard to do the laundry. They were
lonely, they needed some companionship and so on that wasn't there. So they
could decide to go to a personal care home.
Those
people are no longer getting in; certainly, not the way they used to be. They're
prioritized as level zero. They're at the very bottom of the list, and by the
time they ever get into a personal care home they could be ready for long-term
care. That is a problem I'm hearing from personal care homes, and there's a
concern that seniors have in my district and I know throughout the province, and
I ask the minister to bear that in mind and to change back to the way it used to
be.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
wording of the petition, which I acknowledge the Member brings on behalf of
others, is actually founded on an inaccurate premise, Mr. Speaker. The levels of
care framework that's in place, which was put in place in 2011 or even earlier,
in actual fact stipulates a personal care need and is agnostic on the subject of
whether or not this is physical or psychological.
As to
the comments made by the Member afterwards, which are his own and I presume
didn't come from the petition, there is no level zero. That is frankly
inaccurate. If the Member opposite would like to come and have a discussion so
that he can better inform his constituents on their next question around
personal care homes, I'd be happy to arrange that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Residents of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans believe it is bad health practice to
make people wait for so long when it comes to access for an MRI machine in
Gander. A more reasonable option would be to establish an MRI machine in Grand
Falls-Windsor so people can get the timely care they need. Early diagnosis means
healthier people, much better outcomes and reduced costs for the health care
system. Long wait times mean people get sick, their outcomes are poorer and the
costs are higher.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Central Health to establish an MRI machine in
Grand Falls-Windsor.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm having people sit in front of me in my office in Grand
Falls-Windsor and they're suffering paralysis as they're waiting to get into
Gander to get access to this MRI machine. I know it's not something that can
happen overnight, but I just want the Minister of Health to keep it in mind,
sort of thing, that we have a big district that's west of Gander. There are lots
of people between there and Deer Lake who need access to the MRI machine as
well.
There
are a lot of people, their health is deteriorating as we speak. Their wait times
could be up to a year for this MRI machine. I'm not sure what time it shuts down
in Gander, but I know there is definitely a need for one for Grand Falls-Windsor
because, like I say, there are a lot of people west of Gander who need assess to
this machine.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
on behalf, again, of the people of Western Newfoundland and Newfoundland and
Labrador concerning the hospital in Corner Brook. I assume, and I'm fairly
confident, the hospital will be announced before we sit again in the House. I
think that's great news for all Western Newfoundland and Labrador.
These
people here are from St. John's, Conception Harbour and Conception Bay South,
again. They're asking the government to reconsider and, hopefully – and I know
the minister is working with the companies and also the Newfoundland and
Labrador trades council and the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction
Association to ensure that the work benefit is maximized for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Please
God there will be no need for any protest this year, that cooler heads will
prevail. With all the compromise the minister is trying to make with both groups
and all the unions, that there will be local workers hired in the Corner Brook
area and the hospital will be built on time, on schedule, on budget with the
great skilled labourers and union workers that are in Western Newfoundland and
all across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Once
again, this will be my last time to present the petition before the hospital is
announced. I just urge government again to work with everybody involved. If
there is anything I can do, I would definitely help in whatever way possible.
Like I did last summer with the Ironworkers, Mr. Speaker; like I did last summer
to ensure that local workers are maximized and the benefits are maximized for
the local community.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Windsor Lake to stand in his place and introduce the
motion, Motion 6.
The hon.
the Member for Windsor Lake.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
It's my understanding that
after discussions I am to move, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East -
Bell Island, that the private Member's resolution being debated today be amended
by deleting the word “admonish” and by substituting instead the word
“challenge.”
MR. SPEAKER:
A little procedural issue. So
I ask the Member for Windsor Lake, you first of all need to move your motion and
then you need to propose the amendment.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you for your guidance,
Mr. Speaker.
So, in
other words, I'd read the motion prior to amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. CROSBIE:
That motion, prior to amendment, is contained in the papers today.
“BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador
“(1) to
admonish the House of Commons and Senate of Canada for passing Bill C-69 with
provisions that violate the principle of joint management contained in the 1985
Atlantic Accord and its implementation legislation;
“(2) to
take all reasonable measures, including Court challenges where necessary, to
safeguard against conflicting federal legislation, the hard-won joint management
rights that Newfoundland and Labrador secured under the 1985 Atlantic Accord and
its implementation legislation; and
“(3) to
refuse to enact any provincial law that will erode those rights.”
MR. SPEAKER:
Do you have a seconder for
that?
MR. CROSBIE:
I have a seconder in the
Member for Conception Bay - Bell Island.
MR. SPEAKER:
Conception Bay East - Bell
Island. Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
East.
MR. SPEAKER:
Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR. CROSBIE:
My apologies.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, no problem.
Now, you
have an amendment.
MR. CROSBIE:
Yes.
Again,
seconded by the same Member, it is that the resolution being debated be amended
by deleting the word “admonish” and substituting instead the word “challenge.”
MR. SPEAKER:
Now, I seek direction from
the Clerk as to whether or not we need to recess to review that amendment or can
we proceed.
Proceed?
CLERK (Barnes):
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. We can proceed.
It's
been accepted?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I understand the
amendment has been accepted.
Please
proceed.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you.
As I
understand it, Mr. Speaker, that was a quick three minutes there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. CROSBIE:
I was about to say 15
minutes, it's now 12 minutes and five seconds. I'll do my best.
Let me
begin by reading into the record the words of a former premier of the province,
who was a principal advocate and a signatory to the 1985 Atlantic Accord, Brian
Peckford. This is from a letter published in
The Telegram Saturday and takes, as a point of departure, videotaped
remarks by our federal Liberal Cabinet representative, Seamus O'Regan.
The
former premier says: “First, the minister can't turn up in person, so he does
this video for the Noia Conference in St. John's.
“And
what does he do?
“Tells
the delegates they don't know what they are talking about when they say there
are problems with Bill C-69.”
“I don't
think the Noia of my day would have treated me as kindly if I had uttered such
hogwash.
“We have
now reached a new low in this country when a federal minister can so
misrepresent the facts to a conference and then be thanked for appearing – after
insulting the experts.”
This is
the same letter from former Premier Peckford: “According to The Telegram's Mark
Vaughan-Jackson, O'Regan's comments ‘went over like a lead balloon.'”
“The
bloody nerve of this excuse for a federal minister to so insult the competent
people of Noia and the overall resource sector. The minister says the bill will
speed up the approval process over what is now in place, and right after that we
have Paul Barnes, Atlantic and Arctic director for the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers say, ‘This bill is creating longer timelines for us with
respect to getting approvals for offshore projects, longer than the previous
piece of legislation that's in place.'
“And
then the minister out of one side of his mouth says he would not agree with the
bill if it downgraded the Atlantic Accord, and then out of the other side he
talks about having representatives from the CNLOPB on review panels which decide
things.
“Well,
that breaks the accord provisions of joint management, Mr. Minister. The CNLOPB
is a federal-provincial body, not a provincial body, so its representatives
would not be representing the province.
“The man
does not understand joint management.
“And if
the provisions of Bill C-69 that provide the federal minister with sole
discretionary power are still there, that violates the Accord as well, since it
is sole power to the federal minister, not joint power to the federal and
provincial ministers, as the Accord prescribes.
“Is that
so hard to understand?
“The
minister says Bill C-69 does not violate the ‘spirit and benefits' of the
Accord.
“How can
the minister utter such words when the Accord stipulates in Section 2(d),
‘Equality of both governments in the management of the resource,' and, ‘joint
management' in other sections, and yet Bill C-69 has review panels that are not
joint panels that give equal provincial representation, and the federal minister
alone has authority over certain relevant decisions.
“The
Atlantic Accord was and is not a federal proposal to which the province agreed.
Rather, as its very title says, ‘Memorandum of Agreement between the Government
of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore oil and
gas resource management and revenue sharing.'
“And the
very first words in the agreement are: ‘The Government of Canada and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have reached an Accord on joint
management of the offshore oil and gas resources off Newfoundland and Labrador
and the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of these resources.'
“And
this was all put into legislation of the Parliament of Canada and of the
Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.” And that is the end of the letter of
Premier Peckford.
With the
support and concurrence of my father, Brian Mulroney, Pat Carney, Joe Clark,
Bill Marshall and many others, Brian Peckford fought for and achieved the
Atlantic Accord in 1985. This Accord gave us in this province an advantage we
never had before, something the government of Pierre Trudeau would not give us,
and that was joint management of our offshore resources as if they were
resources on land in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Trudeau philosophy, shared by many other Liberals right here in this province,
was that these resources ought to be managed by Ottawa on our behalf. They
argued that we didn't have the right or the ability to manage these resources
ourselves here in this province. That kind of patronizing thinking is obviously
alive and well in yet another incarnation of Trudeau government in this country.
The mentality is you don't need your own banquet table when you can have the
crumbs from ours.
The
economic transformation we witnessed in this province over the past decade, the
transformation that drove job growth, income growth and housing growth and
investment growth and has us leading the country in economic growth, that was a
product of the Atlantic Accord, which not only made us principal beneficiary,
but also joint managers of the resource.
So what
is the Atlantic Accord and what are the benefits of it? It has 68 clauses,
covering the whole gamut of offshore management and benefits. I won't read the
actual provisions from the Accord, in the interest time, but we should remember
these words taken from the Accord document itself and the subsequent legislation
– which was mirror legislation, federal and provincial. These words: principal
beneficiary; equality of both governments; as if these resources were on land;
stable and permanent arrangement for management; joint management; may only be
amended by the mutual consent of both governments. I'll emphasize that again:
“may only be amended by the mutual consent of both governments.”
These
words ought to be carved in stone on a monument outside Confederation Building.
They have brought well-paying jobs and hope to the province, and $22 billion in
revenue to the Treasury. Where would we be without the Atlantic Accord and the
offshore? We are a small province. Only through vigilance and fighting spirit
can we keep those rights and benefits.
The
conflicting legislation, as we're all aware in this Chamber, has been known as
Bill C-69 and has now been passed into law by the Parliament of Canada as the
Impact Assessment Act. This
legislation gives the federal government and the federal minister the power to
impose their will on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore industry.
To quote
the act: In case of any inconsistency or conflict – this is the federal act
enshrining the Atlantic Accord – this act and the regulations made thereunder,
that's the Atlantic Accord legislation, take precedence.
Furthermore, the Accord states in section 60: “Except by mutual consent, neither
government will introduce amendments to the legislation or regulations
implementing the Accord.”
This is
mirrored in section 2, which states: The purpose of the Accord is “to provide
for a stable and permanent arrangement for the management of the offshore
adjacent to Newfoundland” and Labrador today “by enacting the relevant
provisions of this Accord in legislation of the Parliament of Canada and the
Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador and by providing that the Accord may
only be amended by the mutual consent of both governments.” – both governments.
The
resolution refers to court challenges. Court references are a valuable means of
achieving clarity because the courts have the ability to negate laws they deem
to be in conflict with others that take precedence.
The
government of the province can make a reference to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Court of Appeal to resolve a conflict. That is one avenue for resolving a
conflict.
Depending on legal outcomes and political circumstances in the country, we could
also press for a constitutional amendment to entrench our rights under the
Atlantic Accord. The Accord, indeed, anticipates such a course of action;
however, this would require the agreement of Parliament – the same one that just
passed the legislation – and also the agreement of various other provinces in
accordance with the constitutional amending formula. This is not a small task.
We can
also take another course by standing together as Newfoundland and Labrador
parliamentarians and state definitely that we will refuse to amend any
legislation that gives effect to the C-69 changes, and that is what this
resolution seeks to persuade and provoke the Members of this House to do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the impassioned speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I
certainly do appreciate this private Member's resolution. I thank and recognize
the change that has been made to certain wording, and I do recognize and
appreciate the spirit of co-operation.
I am
pleased to stand here today and speak to this resolution, and speak to what we
have been doing as a government over the last number of years. I'm just going to
show you the amount of work that has gone into this. These are just some of the
documents I brought to Ottawa, letters that I've written, pieces of information
I've prepared to bring to Ottawa, to the Senate and to the House of Commons, and
to others that have been involved in the development of C-69.
While I
appreciate the Member opposite's impassioned voice, his articulation of the
Atlantic Accord and how important it is – because it is truly important to the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – I wish he had said those words in 2012.
So I
think for the people of the province, allow me a few moments of time – and I
have only about a few moments – to talk a little bit about where we are today,
but before I get into where we are today, Mr. Speaker, allow me to tell you
about the importance, because this is all about natural resource development. So
I just want to remind the Members of the House how important this is to the
people of the province.
In 2019,
mining is forecasted to employ 6,300 people. Think about that; 6,300 people,
high paying, well-paying jobs all throughout our province. That's an 11 per cent
increase over 2018 – an 11 per cent increase. That's how important mining is and
the growth of mining. Our gross value of mineral shipments is forecasted to be
$4 billion, a 47 per cent increase since 2016.
I heard
the Member opposite talk about oil and gas, and he's correct, Mr. Speaker, $22
billion in royalties since oil and gas began in our province. Today, it's 25 per
cent of our gross domestic product. We have four major producing projects. About
7,000 people employed, and royalties this year is about $1.12 billion. So the
impacts of both oil and gas and mining, our natural resources, is incredible.
Bill
C-69 is all about the responsible development of these natural resources, but
allow me just to tell the people of the province and those interested here in
the room today, because this is very important, that C-69 really does try to
improve upon a situation that occurred back in 2012.
So up to
2012 – and this is important for the people in the province, important for the
Members of the House of Assembly. Up until 2012, C-NLOPB, Canada-Newfoundland
and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, was the authority on environmental
assessments. Then in 2012, C-NLOPB was removed from the environmental assessment
process through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Since
I've become minister – and it was pointed out earlier today, I've been minister
now since 2016 – I've been working to restore the role and function of C-NLOPB
in that environmental assessment process. They have over 30 years experience
offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, ensuring that the environmental assessment
process and environmental protections are as stringent as they need to be.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the role and the function of the environmental assessment process is
critical to ensure that, for example, short duration, well understood with
minimal environmental effects such as exploratory wells, do not have to go
through a full panel review, and that timelines for all assessments be very
certain and globally competitive. So that's one thing, is ensuring that 30- to
60-day exploration wells don't have to go through an extensive three-year
process for approval, which under CEAA 2012 this was occurring. It took up to
900 days to get approval for a 30-day well.
Now,
we've been saying very stringently and very dynamically since 2016 to the
federal government that, look, allow C-NLOPB, on these minimally invasive
geological events, to be responsible for that assessment process.
The
other thing we have asked for, and I want to be abundantly clear. It's very
complex because I've been dealing with this for so long and dealing with
multitudes of changes – as I held up before, I'm talking about multitudes of
drafts and infographics and letters and everything else. We wanted to ensure
that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board had a role on
the panel.
A panel
is formed, Mr. Speaker, when we have a major discovery. Let's just pretend that
next week one of our offshore drillers is out there, they're doing some really
great work in terms of exploration, and they make a big discovery like Hibernia,
a couple of billion barrels of oil discovered. They should have to go through a
full environmental process beyond what they had to go through for exploration.
This is now an impactful situation. That on the panel that does that full
assessment, that will take some time, that C-NLOPB should have a role in that
panel.
Up until
2012, they were the panel. From 2012 to now they had no role. What C-69 does is
it now gives two out of the five panel members to C-NLOPB.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, what we wanted to ensure – and I'm going to use simpler language – in
all this discourse back and forth between ourselves and the federal government
and ensuring that we had what we think is the appropriate process in Bill C-69,
we wanted to ensure that the environmental assessment process was about doing it
right, doing it in a timely manner and doing it jointly.
We
wanted to make sure, Mr. Speaker, there was an opportunity to do this jointly,
which is required under the Atlantic Accord. I'm going to harken back; remember
in 2012 that was taken from us. That's why I said I wish the Member opposite had
been able to give that impassioned speech in 2012.
We're
now faced with a situation in 2019 that the federal government has made some
changes. I'll give the federal government recognition for these changes. There
have been some gains. In the legislation, C-69, they do give recognition of the
C-NLOPB, which has not been there since 2012. In the process, C-NLOPB's
expertise and knowledge gained over 30 years offshore will be recognized. Well,
I'm very glad to see that.
As I
said, two of the five seats on the panel will now be held by C-NLOPB and they
will be consulted – C-NLOPB will be consulted on the remaining seats, as well on
the terms of reference. So there's been movement from 2012 to now. I'll
recognize the federal government for that.
Remember, I spoke about exploration. Well, exploration was very importantly
removed from the panel list. The federal government has removed it; said they're
going to remove exploration from the panel list in the regulation as long as
there's a regional environmental assessment process – which is underway, by the
way.
We
should have the first regional environmental assessment process offshore
Newfoundland and Labrador by the end of this year. So we're pleased with that;
however, exploration is still on the panel list, subject to this regional
environmental assessment and is still the control mechanism for that, and
approving that still rests with the Minister of Environment, federally.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize there's been some movement, I will say that
two out of the five panel members is not joint management. It's not joint.
Giving a say, kind of consulting with members of the C-NLOPB on who the other
panel members are, is not joint management, Mr. Speaker.
This
government has been saying to the federal government: While we recognize there's
been some movement, we're not there yet. We believe in joint management. The
Atlantic Accord is joint management.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, up to 2012 that was what we had. Then since that time, from 2012
under the Harper administration, it changed. We believe it should be joint
management. Also, as I said, exploration is critically important as well.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this is not really, truly – the caution I will say here is
environmental protection, environmental assessment is critical to everybody in
this room. Everyone in this room wants a robust environmental assessment
process. Don't confuse what we're talking about with the fact that we want
something less than that. No, there's nobody in this room who would say they
want less. They want it done right, and that's what I said earlier. This is
about doing it right, doing it in a timely manner and doing it jointly, Mr.
Speaker.
Now,
we're carefully and very cautiously reviewing all the changes to Bill C-69,
because I can tell you there have been multitudes of amendments through the
House of Commons. There were amendments in the Senate. Then it went back to the
House of Commons, there were more amendments. So we're taking the time to ensure
that we are doing this properly.
Now,
we're never going to give up on doing what is right for our environment, and
doing what's right for responsible development, and doing what's right for joint
management under the Atlantic Accord. That is paramount.
Now, I'm
going to read – I like this quote and I'm going to say this quote because I
think it's so important. The former federal Natural Resources Minister, Jim
Carr, said this, and I like to quote it because I think it speaks to their
intent. We just didn't get to fully their intent.
“The
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area remains one of the most
attractive jurisdictions globally for oil and gas development. I look forward to
continued collaboration with our joint management partners to realize the full
potential of our offshore resources and to ensure they can be developed safely
and responsibly.”
Mr.
Speaker, there has been some movement in C-69. Unfortunately, it's not quite
near enough. Now, what are we doing? We're still reviewing, we're still doing
the analysis to see what can be done. We're investigating what's going to happen
under regulation. There could be some movement under regulation, like removing
exploration from the full panel list.
There
may be some further clarification on the word, consult. What I've been saying to
them is maybe the word is agree with the provincial Minister of Natural
Resources. The legislation talks about discussions and collaboration between the
federal Minister of Natural Resources, and the federal Minister of Environment
is mute on the Department of Natural Resources provincially.
So I
will say this, Mr. Speaker, I have had, as I said to you earlier, multiple
letters dating back to 2016 on this issue. Multiple interventions with my
federal colleagues about the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Natural
Resources, the minister of Treasury Board, all the way through, various
ministers on this very issue.
The
Premier and I, most recently, went to Ottawa to appear before the Senate
committee. I have had, for the last number of years, a subcommittee brought
together of stakeholders like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers,
Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, we brought in the St. John's Board of
Trade and others to work collaboratively to impress upon Ottawa the roles and
responsibilities under joint management and what that means. Again, it was
removed in 2012. So that helped them understand how important it is in the
environmental assessment process, the joint management feature of that.
As well,
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see the House stand today to talk about how important
joint management is in our offshore and how we want to work together,
collaboratively, to ensure that we are maximizing the requirements under the
Atlantic Accord and joint management.
I will
say this; everybody in this room, again, wants to ensure a robust environmental
assessment process. We want to ensure that we are protecting our environment. We
want to ensure that we are doing any analysis jointly, which is a requirement
under the Atlantic Accord.
That's
why this resolution is important, Mr. Speaker, to have everyone in this House
come together and say the same message to Ottawa that we've been saying for the
last three-plus years, and that is joint management is just that. It is about
joint management, it is about the development of our offshore and it's about
working together to maximize the opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand here in the House today as we debate the private
Member's resolution that we as the Official Opposition have put forward
concerning Bill C-69 and the impact it will have on Newfoundland and Labrador's
industries; but, particularly, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and
the potential to develop a more prosperous future and ensure this generation and
future generations benefit from a resource that we own, that we should be
managing. We're even willing to be cordial and open to be part of a joint
management process with the federal government.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to bring you back to a number of years ago. I had the
privilege in 1985 of being in the room when the first accord was signed, and
being proud as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian at the time. I was a leader of a
particular organization that did a lot of work with government and was invited
because of the nature of what we did in encouraging, sustaining and fostering
young people in Newfoundland and Labrador to develop their skills around
education, around leadership, and to be part and parcel of developing the next
level of prosperity for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
remember sitting in the lobby of the hotel at the time, when Premier Peckford
walked in. Minister Marshall was with him at the time, and they came over and
talked to our delegation. I remember Premier Peckford had his big cigars, big as
life as he always did, but very cordial and very open and very engaging. He come
over and said: This is the start of a new future for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and, particularly, people like yourselves, the young people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Those
words have rang true ever since. We knew it wouldn't be an overnight
accomplishment. We knew there would still be some struggles. We knew there would
be an out date when we would really see the fruits of the labours of people like
himself, of all the civil servants who had fought to get this to happen, to
people in the industry.
Don't
forget, while the oil exploration industry and the oil producing industry may
have been flourishing everywhere else in the world, we were relatively new. We
had only started in the late '60s, really, doing anything around exploration.
Because of the nature of geographics, the offshore and the dangers in the North
Atlantic and the technology that was available at the time, in comparison to
where it was in 1985, in comparison to where it is now, it's night and day.
The
vision seen by the minister and the premier of the day, and by the prime
minister of Canada of the day and by the minister, Mr. Crosbie, who was the
federal minister for Newfoundland and Labrador in the federal Cabinet, tells you
volumes about looking down the road and ensuring that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have a stake in what we're going to do.
The
Atlantic Accord was a key component. It's only now because there's a lot of
debate about the impact and, particularly, what Bill C-69 is going to do to it.
The impact it's going to have on the future direction. The minister alluded to
the amendments that were made in 2012. Unfortunately, almost alluded like we had
anything to do with it.
I can
tell you, unequivocally, with the exception here, I was the only one who was in
this House of Assembly at the time. As a matter of fact, we spoke out against
anything that would jeopardize joint management. We talked about ensuring that
Newfoundland and Labrador and the C-NLOPB would have a bigger stake in what
would happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. We looked at modifying the agreements
so that the next generation would benefit more and the new agreements.
Don't
forget, it was the PC administration of the day and the premier of the day who
stood up to the oil industry and first said we have an Accord. Not only is the
Accord something that's governed by all levels of government, the two levels of
government here that entrenches policy and operational procedures, but it also
sends a message to the oil industry. We're open for business, but we're open for
business that benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador also.
We stood
up to the oil industry and said, no, here's our royalty regime. Here's how the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to benefit. Here's how we can come
up with $22 billion that have been generated because of what went on in the
Atlantic Accord and what went on in subsequent negotiations with the oil
industry.
We're
going to tell you, if you don't want to business with us, or you don't want to
do it under our terms, or you don't want to do it in a co-operative way where we
all benefit from this, you know what? No more giveaways. We're going to ensure
that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit immediately and benefit
down the road.
So we
stood our ground. Six months later they came back to the table. Six months after
that there were agreements signed based on the principles of the first Atlantic
Accord, and instilling exactly what would be beneficial to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In 2012,
there were some amendments that could be interpreted to be not necessarily, or
could jeopardize some of the particular parts of the original one, but that was
fought. At this point, it wasn't so detrimental to Newfoundland and Labrador.
What we're seeing now, move forward another seven years, is something that is
detrimental, that we do have real concerns about.
It's not
only us. We've met as a caucus with a number of groups. We've had discussions
with the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association which has
real concerns of the impact this will have, particularly around not having joint
management, particularly around having another component of bureaucracy to deal
with that would slow down exploration.
Even
CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who some would think are
obviously all about their industry, and no doubt they have a stake in making
sure production is up and it's done fluidly, but they also, like everybody else
in this province, and I would think everybody in this House of Assembly, want to
ensure that justice is done, due diligence is done and that the environment is
protected.
We have
one of the most rigid, environmental assessment processes that has worked. Don't
forget, we're at this now 35, almost 40 years. We have had an extremely rigid
process here that people must adhere to, to ensure if you want to do business in
Newfoundland and Labrador you not only have to protect your workers, you also
have to protect the environment, and we've been doing that.
I give
credit, the minister over the last two years, when there's been more notice and
more debate here, has made it clear that the environment is just as important as
the production, and there's nothing preventing us from being able to do both of
it simultaneously and doing it hand in hand. What we fear here is that one will
get outweighed over the other. Don't forget, we have a small window here.
We've
developed some of the best qualified individuals in the world. We've put in a
regime around royalties that benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
but also make it attractive enough for industry all over the world. Don't
forget, we've had new players join the oil industry in the last 18 months. So
that speaks volumes of where we are. We've already shown that we can produce, we
can build the infrastructure that they need to sustain an oil industry. We've
done that.
We're
working on some new endeavours now. We're asking that maybe more of it should be
given to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be able to move that forward; but,
as we do that, we do it with the hope that the intent of the original Atlantic
Accord will still be intact. So we're not to jeopardize anything here but we're
to ensure that we move things forward.
What
we're doing here, from the perspective of discussions we've had with industry,
from our own assessment of it, from talking to one of the – well, actually two
architects of the original Accord, this puts us backwards. When we're about to
develop new approaches to technology and being able to do more exploration in
deeper waters because the technology has been proven with the North Sea and some
other similar like environmental processes or environmental areas that you would
face as we do in the Grand Banks and off the coast of the North Atlantic in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and as we go further up towards Labrador, as we move
forward now we're putting more restrictions.
As the
industries improve in its environmental processes, as technology is improved, as
people's awareness of the collaborative approach between the environment and
production has moved forward and people have come to an understanding that it's
not about raping the environment just to get money, it's about a balance here.
Now all of a sudden we're looking at doing something that – again, I've read it
and I tried to get my head around it.
While I
understand people may have concerns about a number of things in any industry,
it's a difference between having a concern and having a discussion on how you
address that concern, to coming in and actually changing something that is a
threefold approach here. One, something that was beneficial; two, it was
something that has been proven to work; and, three, why would we fix something
that wasn't broken as we move towards improving our technology knowing we have a
better ability to address any particular concern that may be in there.
So all
of a sudden I get the impression – and this is purely my interpretation – that
the federal government have bowed down to a small minority who are either
extremely loud or have a great lobbying process to ensure they have things in
there that would move their agenda forward at the expense of the agendas of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Canada also. Because it
has an impact everywhere else also.
It's not
only the fear of what we're doing with the oil industry. The mining industry
here, there's an impact on that also. People forget that when we talk about it.
For those who are naysayers, and I had a conversation with somebody who said: to
hell with the oil industry, they get all the attention. They're always taken
care of. There are other industries here. Sure, the fishing industry is
important, and we have roles and responsibilities.
One of
the things we've all fought in this House for is joint management around that.
We know it's not moving where it should because of the fact that the best people
who have the best ability to be able to move the industry forward are not in
control of it, and that's the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
fisherpersons, the producers, the harvesters, all the people who are engaged in
the business community as part of that.
So, the
same way here, the fear is if we bring in something that's going to stifle the
mining industry or the offshore industry in anyway, shape or form, it's going to
have an impact on all of us. To what degree? What's the intent here?
If the
intent was to say we're going to set up a system where if there is a change in
the environment, if there is a change in the use of technology, if there's a
change in how we produce, and I know there are some here. Like, we're going
further offshore. Well, let's first do the steps to prove that the industry has
the technology to be able to do it at the same risk – and I say risk in a
minimal sense. There shouldn't be a lot of risk to the environment, but the same
risk.
There's
a risk at everything. There's a risk when you get in your car to go off this
parking lot that you could have an accident. We just don't stop everything
because there's a simulated risk to it. What we talk about is minimizing those
risks and accepting what's an acceptable risk. In this case, that's not where
we're going. We're setting up another system to delay a process.
Now, the
people in the industry, CAPP who we spoke to, Noia who we've spoken to have all
said it. They have no problems, and they've been very diligently upfront in
dealing with any of the regulatory processes or any of the restrictions on how
they move things in their industries.
When I
was out to the mining conference, where people in the mineral industry said,
look, we would adhere to any of the processes that we have to, but we don't need
another layer of bureaucracy. We haven't had a catastrophe, not saying that
something couldn't happen, but we have so many safeguards in play. We have so
many players that are very competent, and we're not a fly-by-night province here
where we let things just flippantly go by because somebody has a cheque that
they can pass to us. That doesn't happen.
We may
have made some mistakes decades ago, maybe centuries ago. That doesn't happen
anymore because we have too much knowledge here, too many people who are
committed to what we're doing here, and we haven't sold out in the last 30 or 40
years.
So, what
are we doing now? We're trying to put another piece of legislation in play, and
I can't say we because I'm hoping now – and I get the impression here from the
Minister of Natural Resources that this PMR, private Member's resolution, will
pass unanimously. I would hope all my colleagues here would support it, based on
the principle that we're not happy with what just happened.
We're
not happy with the Senate and we're not happy with the House of Commons. This
shouldn't have happened, not only because of the political part. The one thing
they did right, which I thought would give us the right result or the proper
result, would have been that they didn't rush this through. They took time. We
had hearings. They went around. That only happened after people pushed it.
We
pushed it in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I know all sides here pushed it. We
had every part of the industry from the environmental side of it to the producer
side of it. We had the mineral industry push it from every component. So when
that happens, as I saw many things over the years, when they start doing Senate
commissions and they'd start doing hearings, you would think now is an
opportunity for everybody to produce the evidence they have.
The
evidence, from my understanding, from every side of it, from people who were
part of the original, people in the industry, even environmentalists who've said
what exists now is pretty good. 2012 did put a little glitch, I won't deny that.
As a matter of fact, if they wanted to do something they should've taken that
out, went right back to the Atlantic Accord and modernized it to the better uses
that we have now with technology, with our legal processes that we do here and
with our royalty regimes about how we do these type of things.
Instead,
what they've done is put another layer that, at best, the only thing we can
determine will happen here – it doesn't improve it any. It doesn't protect the
environment anymore. It slows the process down to a point where it may not be
viable financially or it may not be viable from an investment point of view when
it comes to a company that has a time frame that they have to live within.
Don't
forget, we have one of the longest turnaround times before you get from
application to actually exploration. That's because you have to fit in that
realm and you have to meet all of our criteria, and that's rightfully so.
We've
managed to get an industry to be happy with that. Saying if it takes us three
years, or 18 months to three years, we'll be happy. But if it takes us five
years, we have a billion dollars to spend. We have 500 workers who need to be
employed. We have 20 other jurisdictions that are willing to jump at what we're
doing, and we're not saying we want to go to another jurisdiction and take
advantage that they don't have the same regulatory process we have.
We're
happy to work in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're happy to be part of this
growing community, but the legislation cannot restrict us from doing what's
right in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to stand up for that, and, Mr.
Speaker, I'm confident we'll echo from the mountains to the people in Ottawa,
the Senate and the House of Commons, this is not right. We're not going to
accept it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve more.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Scio.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to pick up on some of the points that the Minister of Natural Resources raised
as well. The minister mentioned that people in Newfoundland want things done
right, and I fully agree with that. Also, as the Minister of Natural Resources
mentioned, Bill C-69 sees two members of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board on the new panel out of the five members. So I strongly
believe we need to fight to ensure sufficient representation, because I do
believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are best placed to make decisions
about people, issues and resources that impact this province.
So this
was my first time going door to door at the recent election. Many residents in
my district told me they want a stronger job market, particularly jobs in the
energy and mining sectors. The energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, as
the minister mentioned, is a significant contributor to our economy, and I'm
very excited about the opportunities for innovation and digital transformation
that will be driven by the incredibly talented people of our province.
We need
to increase our innovation in extracting resources. We need to build on the work
being done by NATI and Noia in driving innovation in these sectors. We need to
explore and develop our green energy capabilities. We need to ensure that
Newfoundland and Labrador can get maximum benefit from the ocean economy through
the Ocean Supercluster investment. We also need to ensure that Newfoundland and
Labrador remains competitive. Considering all that we've accomplished, we need
to fight for joint management to help ensure we're making the best decisions for
the people of our province.
And we
are doing good work already. In Advance
2030 we envision a robust, innovative global supply and service sector. This
will be driven by innovation and technology. This will improve safety, increase
jobs, protect our natural environments and drive efficiencies.
The
Innovation and Business Development Fund with Natural Resources and TCII that
launched in September funded $3 million in projects related to autonomous
vehicles, clean technology, supplier development and subsea excavation in harsh
environments.
Mr.
Speaker, on May 31 of this year, I attended the first NATI and Noia Hacking Oil
and Gas hackathon held at the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences at
Memorial University. At the hackathon, if you've never been, anyone with an
interest, we had a mix of students, industry professionals. They get together
around a problem identified by the industry. So they had a series of problems
and in teams they spent the whole weekend, not quite overnight but a lot of time
coming up with problems to those challenges defined by the industry. They then
design and build and prototype and, at the end of the hackathon, they present
their findings from the prototypes to the general public. So I was fortunate
enough to be there during their presentations.
The
projects, they found innovative ways to solve challenges currently being faced
by the energy sectors. This reinforced how I'm continually reminded of how smart
and amazing the people in our province are. The project is focused on increasing
efficiency and reliability of worker qualifications, the management of the
qualifications, improving offshore safety and incidents response using very
sophisticated camera technology, integrating third-party data sources to improve
decision-making in bidding and exploration processes.
Also,
speaking of amazing work, I was also fortunate recently to visit the Paradigm
Hyperloop team of Blue Water in CBS; that was yesterday. Those incredible team
of students, they study and work all day and then 6 o'clock they drive over to
the Hyperloop and they volunteer there all evening. None of those people are
getting paid to do that. That is their blood, sweat and volunteer hours.
They are
building something that no one has ever built before. It just reinforces how
smart and amazing people are here. I was chatting with the College of the North
Atlantic student and he had designed the wheels of the new Hyperloop. I asked
him: Did you buy them from somewhere? He said no, he came up with the whole
design on his own and they are building these wheels for the Hyperloop.
Participating in these events makes me very proud to be a part of a local
technology sector that supports the students, and I think what they're doing is
nothing short of genius.
In
November 2018, I spoke at the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Digitalization
Workshop. So my experience from financial services, which is an extremely highly
regulated industry, I was involved in driving innovation in that industry. One
of the things that really became apparent to me in my experience is that if
something works in one province it doesn't necessarily work in all provinces,
you need a specialized approach, which is why I support the joint management
spirit of the resolution.
We need
to fight for this spirit, and I strongly believe that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are best placed to make key decisions about our energy and mining
sectors. As the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned, two of the five seats
are currently going to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum
Board, and that certainly challenges the principle of joint management that is
agreed to in the Atlantic Accord.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot
support this bill or this motion. I'm nervous about any private Member's motion
that is otherwise wrapped in patriotic rhetoric and the flag. We've been down
this road far too often where we've bought into things once the flag is waved. I
can think of the turbot wars, I can think of even the fact that maybe we got
into Muskrat Falls because we wanted to thumb our nose at Quebec, and that we
can handle this, yet we're in this mess because of that.
For me,
and I heard yesterday, of course, when the Leader of the Opposition ends his
speech with God guard thee Newfoundland, it's problematic because in many ways
standing up for the environment here is just as patriotic for the future
generations who will live here. Climate change is not a Newfoundland issue; it's
a worldwide issue, so we better get our heads wrapped around that.
So, here
is the thing with us: The C-NLOPB and EAs and environmental assessments,
petroleum boards have conflicting mandates. They license and promote oil and gas
extraction and protect the marine environment. You cannot serve two masters.
It's impossible to serve two masters. Petroleum boards have expertise in
management of oil and gas resources, but not in environmental impact assessment.
They have close relationship with oil companies. So for us a single independent
impact assessment body promotes impartiality, accountability and, most of all,
public trust.
I go
back to a most recent example – and this goes back to December 12, 2018. It was
questions that were raised by the former colleagues of the NDP here that in the
spring of 2017 Husky oil had a near-miss iceberg incident on the SeaRose
production platform. It took 10 months to investigate, and only then do we learn
the full story.
The
penalties levied on Husky by the C-NLOPB for this iceberg incident apparently
had no effect. During the worst storm since 1982 Ocean Ranger disaster – and you
might remember the safety regulations that came out after that, and in the
inquiry, if I remember correctly, safety procedures weren't followed basically
because they didn't want to shut down production, to have to drill. So profit is
the prime motive here.
Anyway,
during the worst storm since the Ocean Ranger disaster Husky discovers the
largest spill in our history when attempting to resume pumping when conditions
are still so bad that we can't even assess the spill. That does not inspire
confidence in petroleum boards or in the oil production companies when their
bottom line is profit. Nothing wrong with profit, but let's not confuse profit
with looking at the common good of the environment. That's a write off, that's
an unnecessary interruption – but hey, let's carry on.
I don't
know if I really have a lot of trust, either, for that matter, in our province
to do the right thing as well. And this is another reason why we cannot support
this motion. The reference has been to The
Way Forward and to the Budget Speech, and I went through those and I can
tell you that a lot of The Way Forward
and the Budget Speech is very much about economic development, but very short
shrift given to protecting the environment. It's an afterthought. It's not there
front and centre.
Question
Periods have not yielded any more comfort either. Despite numerous questions
about specifics related to the North Spur and Muskrat Falls, answers have been
evasive and vague.
Questions with regard to aquaculture regulations; if the aquaculture regulations
were so good there would not have been a judicial challenge mounted by the
Atlantic Salmon Federation a few years ago, which basically forced government
into doing a full environmental impact statement, assessment of the Grieg
Aquaculture project. Let's keep in mind, it wasn't done out of any – like we
should do it on our own initiative. It was done in response to, and when the
project was released from further environmental assessment, the 15 or so
conditions on it were pretty anemic.
Marine
harvest is another aquaculture expansion at the Indian Head Hatchery, yet that
is also facing a judicial challenge by local groups, conservation groups
concerned about the impact it would have on wild Atlantic stocks. If you drive
out the Trans-Canada Highway, you will find a mining exploration road that will
now allow for mining exploration adjacent to the Avalon Wilderness area, the
Salmonier Nature Park, and the headwaters of the Salmonier River. So when I hear
comments about how we are going to look after our environment, I don't have the
confidence.
I've
also heard comments about, well, we know green energy is a way off and we got
oil. Oil is going to be around for a little while longer, we might as well make
as much money out of it as we can. Instead of we've got to start turning our
mines to developing new technologies and become innovative green leaders. It's
about what can we squeeze out of it. Maybe that's why there's such a flurry to
get the oil out of the ground before the green technology takes over and they're
not making any more money.
Let's be
honest, there is a cost to Newfoundland's economy, Newfoundland and Labrador's
economy if the environment is not protected, to fisheries, to our farming, to
disease. If you've been looking at acidification of the ocean increases, what
will it do to our ability to prosecute traditional stocks: crab, shrimp,
lobster, you name it. So the environmental damage will have an impact on our
infrastructure and on our ability just to live in this province.
So, just
a few more general comments. There has always been an important role for an
independent federal environmental assessment of offshore oil projects, and that
goes back to the Hibernia environmental assessment in the early 1980s. The
provincial government and the Official Opposition are trying to convince us that
this long-standing EA process is taking away provincial management rights
enshrined in the Atlantic Accord. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Environmental assessment is not about management. The Atlantic Accord is
concerned with managing the industry, not with environmental assessment. There
is no infringement on the Atlantic Accord. Environmental assessment precedes oil
projects; management begins when projects are approved. If and when a project is
approved, the Atlantic Accord co-management approach begins. We agree that the
province needs to be an equal player in management.
The
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, newly renamed in Bill C-69, will continue to
provide an independent, transparent investigation of the possible environmental
and social impacts of the project. It has been done for the last four decades.
So under
the new legislation, the federal Environment minister can allow the C-NLOPB a
greater role in assessing a particular project – for example, in sitting on a
joint review panel – but opponents want control of the whole process. They want
to shorten and water down the environmental assessment process, and this is not
the time to be doing that, especially when we're talking about embarking on
high-risk and deep-water drilling. Why on earth would we want the managers of
exploration and production to control the environmental assessment process?
The
provincial government and the Official Opposition have been arguing for one
blanket EA for all exploration projects in an area, but these projects are not
in the same, and the deep-water exploration is a high-risk activity. So we want
to see a strong federal environmental assessment process remain in place;
however, as a province, we need to do more than this to protect the offshore
environment and oil industry workers.
That's
why our party's been calling for an independent offshore environmental and
safety authority. It would do everyday management of safety and environmental
protection. It would bring a stronger regulatory and monitoring regime to
protect seabirds, make sure that workers aren't in the path of icebergs, and
prevent companies from trying to restart in storm conditions, as an example.
Even if we had this independent environment and safety authority, we'd still
need strong federal-led environmental assessments for new projects offshore.
I reject
the notion that oil companies are going to pull up stakes and move away just
because we're not giving them a corrupted environmental assessment process. I
totally reject that. They are profit motivated and they will come back. They
haven't left yet.
Environmental protection is the cost of doing business in a modern world. I will
tell you, if we're not factoring in the cost of the environment, we're missing a
major cost.
As I
noticed, this province's track record is abysmal. Eagleridge, Grieg aquaculture,
methylmercury, Sandy Pond at Long Harbour and many others. By the way, with
regard to Eagleridge, that was approved by the PCs and unable to be stopped by
the Liberals. So both parties have had an abysmal track record in this.
I have
three words to say to people who want to turn over the environmental assessment
process to the industry, and that's the Husky oil spill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have an opportunity to speak to this private Member's motion. I will say from
the get-go that I will be supporting the motion.
I reject
the notion, quite frankly, that we have a corrupt system now. I believe my
colleague used that terminology about a corrupt system. I think we have very
solid environmental legislation, from what I understand. I'm not an
environmental scientist, far from it, but from what I can gather, we have good
environmental legislation. Certainly compared to other jurisdictions, I would
say Canada is pretty strong in that regard.
I think
all we're saying and all that's being suggested here is that there are grave
concerns around Bill C-69 being brought forth by the federal government, and the
potential impact it could have on basically shutting down our oil industry.
We've
had Members in this House of Assembly stand to their feet, as the Member who
just spoke before me stood to his feet, and I agree with a lot of what he had
said about the issues around education. He talked about the teachers in the
classroom and all the students and the cramped spaces and class caps and
students with exceptionalities and all those issues. Issues around health care,
issues around poverty, lifting people out of poverty. I support all those
things. I think everybody generally does, but I've got to ask the question, I
really do have to ask the question: how do we pay for it? How do we pay for it,
Mr. Speaker? I wish there was a magic answer.
I know
that tourism is doing well. I'm glad to see that. I'm glad to see we're doing
well with tourism. The Minister of TCII is always standing to his feet and
talking about strives that are being made in tourism and the rubber-tire traffic
is up around the province. That's good news. Absolutely, it's positive.
We know
there are challenges with the wild fishery. Although it's still a billion-dollar
industry, and that's positive; but, my goodness, we can't – we are resource-rich
province.
So when
I hear commentary about oil and gas and we can't risk the environment. There's
risk in everything in life. There's risk in everything, but we can't risk
anything in oil and gas. We can't do any mining projects if it's anywhere near a
wilderness area. We can't do that.
We talk
about some of the other projects. Sandy Lake, I believe, was mentioned. Some
other projects where we've seen mining activity. We can't do that. We can't do
aquaculture. We can't do aquaculture because that could impact the wild fishery
– and I agree with that, by the way.
I can
remember standing in this House and talking about the Grieg project and the
concerns I had at the time that we were foregoing a full environmental impact
which, thankfully, the courts did step in and they went through the appropriate
process. I'm glad that that happened. I can remember when I said it, I was being
accused then, you're against Grieg. You're against aquaculture. You're against
the Burin Peninsula. That's what I was hearing. No, I was for following the
rules and the environmental processes that we have in place, and we have good
ones.
I don't
think we need to create legislation that's going to make it even more onerous
than it already is and drive oil exploration and development away, because,
quite frankly, we can't afford to let that happen. We're in bad enough shape
now. We're talking about the fact that we couldn't make payroll a few short
years ago. We would have been $2.7 billion in the hole, apparently. We just
borrowed 1.3 or 1.4, whatever it was, the other day to add on to our crippling
debt.
We can't
just grab the money out of the air. I'm resisting to use the money-tree analogy,
I really am, what I've used in the past, but the bottom line is that if we want
the things for our province like good health care and education and roads and
all of those things, the money has to come from somewhere.
We are
blessed with an abundance of natural resources that we can utilize, if we do it
properly, for the benefit of our people. I believe we can do it in a balanced
way that brings in the revenues that we so desperately need for all the things
that we've mentioned, but at the same time, protects the environment.
Now,
when we talk about protecting the environment, we have to realize, I think we
all realize, if you build a house or a subdivision or an office building or a
hotel or whatever you do, here's some news for you, a news flash, you have to
chop down some trees. It has to happen. That's reality. Trees will be cut down.
Waterways will be impacted in some cases.
If
you're going to do developments and mines, guess what? Heavy equipment is coming
in. It's going to dig stuff up, there's no doubt. There's going to have to be
detention – I'm saying detention pond, that may not be the right term, but we
know for the effluent and so on from the mine. Those things are going to happen.
If we
create a landfill for some of the garage like we did in Robin Hood Bay, the
garbage has to go somewhere. So there are going to be landfills because those
are things we need to do.
Now,
would I love to leave every single tree standing and every waterway pristine and
have zero risk to the environment? Would I love that to happen? Absolutely, I
wish there was a way to do it. I really wish there was a way to do it.
Do we
need to invest in green technology and clean energy and so on? Absolutely, we
do. It will happen over time. We started very small with the plastic bag ban.
That's really nothing. It's minuscule, but at least we're thinking about these
things.
There
are other things that I think can be done and will be done in the future with
green energy and electric cars. All those things eventually will come, but, in
the meantime, until that happens, because it's not going to happen overnight,
until that happens, guess what? We have 500,000-plus people living on this
Island that require jobs and they require services and, like it or not, the
reality that we have, despite diversification, which is good and needs to
happen, but the reality of it is that we depend on our natural resources, and we
have to be able to utilize those resources to pay the bills, and that's the
bottom line.
The
legislation, as I said when I started, that's brought down in C-69 – and I'm no
expert on it, I'll say again – but the understanding I have is that it raises
serious concern that it's going to prohibit our ability to develop our natural
resources. In particular our offshore oil, and possibly mining as well.
I think
we have a reasonable balance in place now. As long as we're using the
legislation, as long as we're following it through the full processes that are
there, as long as those processes are being adhered to and monitored and
enforced – and I do agree with the NDP on the need for an independent regulator
for offshore safety and environment. I absolutely agree.
I do
believe there's conflict of interest. I've heard the minister say that
eventually when the industry grows and gets larger that may happen, but I think
it's a conflict right now. I think it should be separated, and I will say that.
But, with that said, we have legislation in place now, and as long as we follow
it, as long as we monitor it, as long as we enforce it, then I think we're fine
as is. We don't need Ottawa, the federal government, imposing legislation on us
that's going to in any way infringe upon our rights under the Atlantic Accord
and our ability to develop the resources that we need for our province.
So, with
that in mind, I'll take my seat. I will say again, I support the motion. We all
know it's only a PMR, private Member's motion, that's non-binding, but at least
it's taking a stand. We're not taking down flags. We're not going to start
calling the prime minister by his first name and none of that stuff, but we are
at least saying that we have serious concerns about this legislation and we want
to make sure that it does not negatively impact our ability to provide for our
people and our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
delighted to speak to this private Member's resolution.
Interesting perspective we have on the floor of the House, and I do appreciate
the hon. Member for his candid comments from the NDP. It's not always easy not
to be populist. Sometimes we drive a particular position based on what we
presume will be adapted to, gravitated to, supported by because it projects a
fighting image. I felt the hon. Member gave a very reasoned account of balance
when it comes to protecting what is ours and sharing what is ours.
It's one
of the things about environmental stewardship which is so keenly essential to
providing a long-term – as we so casually and easily use the reference that we
need to be sustainable; we have to promote sustainability in what we do. The
truth is that we have to put that into action. While I don't necessarily agree
fundamentally with all that the hon. Member had to say, I do appreciate his
perspective and his courage for breaking away from a purely populist or easy
argument to make.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, we do have an opportunity and we have a responsibility
to ensure that the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected,
balanced and that we act in good faith with those interests. I reflect with
certain uneasiness that it wasn't very long on the floor of this House of
Assembly that we were debating and we were posing questions and providing
answers to each other about an oil spill.
The
SeaRose production platform had a major oil spill and there was no talk about
how that's a good thing or let's forget about that, or let's sort of just let
that one slip by, let's not really pay too much attention to that because that's
an anomaly. No, there was some pretty heated debate on the floor of this House
of Assembly about an oil spill that occurred on our offshore area just a short
while ago.
Fortunately, for us, it does not occur very often. In 2004, with the Terra Nova
spill, we encountered a similar situation, albeit of lesser impact; but it
reminds us that when we get into a mode or a position of trying to regulate for
the best interest of the economy that it's extreme circumstances which draw us
to wish to really look at whether or not we are fully regulated and properly
regulated.
I state,
with terror, Cougar 491 where, after an incident, we responded by examining the
situations and then up the game when it comes to regulation. And again, as the
hon. Member pointed out, it was a terrible tragedy with the Ocean Ranger which
really created the bedrock, created the foundation for a regulated oil and gas
industry.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that I will always say is that if you are going to
raise the bar on all of this, if you're going to ask for joint management, it's
absolutely essential you have a game plan in mind as to what you're going to do
with it. Otherwise, you're the dog chasing the car that finally grabs hold of
the tire and starts to spin around and around and around. What do you do then?
Well,
Mr. Speaker, that's the difference I think with our administration, our
government and our Minister of Natural Resources and our Cabinet and our caucus,
our colleagues here, is that we have a plan. When we ask for joint management,
when we go to Ottawa, when we go to our colleagues at a
federal-provincial-territorial table and we make these cases as to how we can
improve the management of our natural resources in our own province, it's not
just simply an ask for the sake of the ask with no inherent plan or motivating
factors behind it. We go with a plan and
Advance 2030 maps out that plan.
We not
only say and we spell out in detail – the Minister of Natural Resources spelled
out in detail what we will do with our industry and for our industry and what
will come from our industry, we map out our own regulatory processes that we
would like to see. We put in place a plan. There's a logical sequence here.
I look
at other examples where there's desperate need for greater linkages between our
national government, our federation and our province, our provincial government,
as well as Indigenous governments, our First Nations. Take for example, caribou,
while a provincial jurisdiction is now managed or it's at least regulated, it's
legislated by both federal endangered species regulations,
Species at Risk Act as well as
provincial endangered species enactment.
It's
been enacted since 2004, but we've never gone to Ottawa with a request for a
true partnership on creating a recovery plan for caribou. Well, this year we
have. We've succeeded. Under both federal and provincial arrangements, we have
struck upon an agreement, which we will be announcing the details very soon, to
be able to make sure that we put in place a recovery plan. So it's one thing to
want joint management, it's another thing to put in place all of the pieces that
are required to make it successful. This government is putting in place the
pieces.
Now on
C-69, on the Impact Assessment Act, we
do have issues that we have raised. We have made modifications. We have been
successful. We will continue to make that case, but our case is made stronger by
the fact that we have in place industry collaboration, an ENGO collaboration to
make that case much stronger to be made.
When it
comes to something we already have a significant degree of joint management on,
which is our aquaculture industry, from a jurisdictional point of view, it's
co-managed, it's a co-jurisdictional piece when it comes to the development of
our sea-based, marine-based aquaculture industry.
It's
striking that whenever an issue comes up, it is not the federal government to
whom a plea is made or litigation occurs against, when it comes to environmental
assessment. It is, as practice has shown, exclusively directed at the provincial
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When, in fact, it is equally eligible
to be litigated against, against the federal government, the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and their Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, as it
was known.
Mr.
Speaker, that speaks volumes in many respects because, while the federal
government does have a significant recourse in positioning in major resource
development projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have already in place
certain joint management measures, some through the realities of the
Constitution and jurisdictions within the Constitution, when environmental
organizations and other groups have come forward, instead of making a case to
the federal administration to invoke an environmental assessment or to invoke
environmental requirements, it is never done. It never happens.
I'll
give you some tangible examples. For the Committee on Introductions, there is a
particular proponent for an aquaculture project that advocated for the use of
introduced species. It was met with no challenge whatsoever by the DFO Committee
on Introductions, the formalized committee of the federal government that we
have a partnership arrangement in. It met with full compliance of the federal
government. That decision was never challenged.
When the
environmental assessment came forward, we conducted the normal practice, the
standard practice of the EIS, our practice was challenged, but the federal
government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which could have
played a role, it could've been invited, could've been asked to participate, and
it was not. It was not.
There
was simply a decision that was taken, the concentration will be exclusively on
the provincial jurisdiction and on the provincial statutes and the provincial
requirements. Well, that speaks quite an interesting tale in its own right, Mr.
Speaker. So I am a very strong proponent, as this government is, of enacting
stronger joint management initiatives on a whole number of fronts.
The
purpose of my recitation to you, Mr. Speaker, is simply to say that we are
succeeding on many fronts where others have failed. We're doing so because we're
making the case that not only is it in our interest as a province to do this,
but we have the capacity, we have the ability and we have the plan in place to
meet other interests as well while maintaining pre-eminence of our own
interests, and that's the difference.
Why we
are advancing things such as improvements to inland fisheries management,
getting greater joint management in that regard, that is an expectation we have
as a government that the federal government will participate with us. We expect
and would appreciate the support of other hon. Members in doing that, but we're
doing it for the right reason for the right things.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I will end off with just a simple statement of recognizing that when we
push forward arguments of joint management, it has to be with a fully-scoped
plan in place to be able to convince not only our governmental partners but
others as well. Non-governmental organizations, environmental organizations,
industry organizations, Indigenous organizations, these are all very important
players in the outcomes of these discussions.
What I
will say is that our government is doing it right. We have not always succeeded
on every venture we have taken on, but we've done so with a promise to try. We
have not ripped the flags down, we have not surrendered territory. We have not
just simply broken off in splendid isolationism whenever someone decides that
things aren't going our way. We advance the argument piece by piece by piece
over the course of time, and that is the most successful strategy that will
always win the day.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I want to applaud the movers of this particular motion and the fact
that they were prepared to amend. That speaks volumes in many respects as well.
I appreciate the fact that we are moving to a more collegial, a more brokered
way of working with each other. I think that will always succeed.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the hard work of our
Minister of Natural Resources, the hard work of all those around her, led by the
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, to make a difference here at home, in the
nation's capital, when it comes to the regulation of the environment around us.
At the
end of the day, whenever we see a situation where our environment is eroded or
we always, unanimously, each and every one of us, move collectively to improve
the management of our environment, but this side will never, ever surrender or
broker against ways to do that simultaneously with improving the economics and
the standard of living that we enjoy in this province, and that, perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, is what separates the two sides of this Chamber.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the opportunity to stand and talk today and represent the District of Terra
Nova, but, more importantly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I grew
up in Labrador – in Wabush, Labrador West, actually. As the Member talked about
this morning, how beautiful it is. What a lot of people don't realize about
Labrador West is it has two of the largest open-pit mines in the world that have
been in operation since the '60s. I have seen first-hand the benefits of these
mines and I've also seen what they can do from an environmental standpoint.
Mr.
Speaker, there's nobody in this room who loves this province, Newfoundland and
Labrador, any more than I do. I love the beauty. I have travelled from the very
tip of Labrador, Saglek, to every small nook and cranny in Newfoundland.
When I
worked as a recruiting officer with the military, anywhere there was a high
school, I was. We've hiked throughout all of Gros Morne and different areas.
What we have here is very, very special. In my mind, as a government, we need to
have the ability to jointly manage every part of it, and that includes offshore
oil and gas, mining resources and the fishery.
A lot of
people haven't probably taken the time to even understand fully what Bill C-69
is. Just the name of the bill in its whole should cause alarm for people. So I'm
going to read it out because it's certainly a mouthful.
The full
name gives a sense of how sweeping and complete it is. It's called, “An Act to
enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend
the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other
Acts.” What is that? I don't really know, and I'm sure nobody in this room knows
because it's a whole lot of nothing, right.
Mr.
Speaker, the resolution that I'm standing up for and talking about is so we can
secure the rights that we had since 1985, and they came with the signing of the
Atlantic Accord. Those rights belong to every one of us as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. If we don't secure these rights and find a way to jointly manage
our assets and our resources, obviously, the future is bleaker every day.
I don't
doubt for a second that there have been some great strides made with Bill C-69.
I listened to the Premier this week talk about CEAA and last week CEAA, and the
week before CEAA, and do you know what? I think everybody in this room will
agree that the points of CEAA are not beneficial to the province and they were a
mistake. We need to ensure that we're not making a mistake with Bill C-69. We
cannot repeat history. We cannot give up the rights we had.
I
listened to the Minister of Natural Resources talk today about the two members
are now guaranteed on a committee, and I think that's great. What's not great is
that committee is to be determined by the Minister of Environment for Canada,
and that could be five, seven, nine, or 11 members, whatever he deems. Say what
you will, I don't see that as joint management in any way, shape or form. What I
do see that as is them just trying to keep us at bay and not have the rights
that we are looking for.
Bill
C-69 takes away joint management and puts the power totally in the hands of the
federal Minister of Environment. It's wrong, unjust, unfair and in total
disagreement with the spirit of the Atlantic Accord.
Last
week on Thursday, when this bill passed, we had seven members who represent us
federally vote against it – seven. Not one, not two, seven. Seven of those
members indicated to us – not only as a government here provincially but to the
people in Newfoundland and Labrador – that they thought our thoughts and values
as presented to them by our Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier, by
the people of the province, by CAPP, by Noia, by industry leaders, by the
workers that work in these fields, meant nothing. My struggle is now we're
expected to trust these same people, negotiate with these same people and this
same government in order to uphold the Atlantic Accord.
I said
in caucus a couple of days ago, I learnt a long time ago that you can listen to
people and tell a lot about them, but what really tells you something about a
person is when you watch them and you see their behaviour. To me, the behaviour
of the seven MPs who voted for Bill C-69 really says how they feel about it.
If you
look at all of our resources as a whole, from the offshore oil and gas, our
mines, you look to the Coast of Labrador, Labrador West, the South Coast, the
West Coast, all of our offshore resources, we employ a lot of people, but we
have the ability to employ a lot more. We have the ability to do it
environmentally and we have the ability to do it so people make money and we can
further our cause as a government.
Like the
hon. Member behind me said a few minutes ago, we have to pay for everything we
have here. It's okay to say we want better roads or we want more schools or we
want better health care, but the only way to find that is to find the revenues
to do it.
We can
find those revenues in an environmentally friendly way and still develop the
resources we have. Our economy cannot run strictly on royalties. We have to find
a way to develop these resources here in Newfoundland. We have to find a way to
develop them with our own people and our own facilities. We've proven time and
time again that we have the ability to do it. There is no reason why we can't
continue to do this and to find a way to do it faster and more environmentally
friendly.
Our
resolution today is that the House of Assembly urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to do two things. First, is to challenge the House of
Commons and the Senate of Canada for passing Bill C-69 with provisions that
violate the principle of joint management contained in the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Second,
is to take all reasonable measures, including court challenges where necessary,
to safeguard against conflicting federal legislation, the hard-won joint
management rights of Newfoundland and Labrador secured under the 1985 Atlantic
Accord and its implementation legislation.
Third,
to refuse to enact the provincial law that would erode those rights. It's
critically important.
We've
heard disturbing words in recent days that indicate we may not be able to do
this. There's no need to mince words or add caveats, we need to be firm on this
resolution and we need to stand united on this as a House. Let's avoid every
temptation to do anything except the right thing, and the right thing is to
support this bill and move it forward.
We're at
a critical path in Newfoundland financially, and we're at a critical path when
it comes to our resources. The environment has never been more important for the
future of our children, but the resources that will give those children a future
are equally as important.
I
certainly have no issues supporting this PMR and I think it's a way for us to
send a message to Ottawa. I think it's a way for us to send a message to our
federal MPs, to our federal senators and to the prime minister. We can no longer
trust Ottawa to do what's right for us and collectively, as a government, we
need to come together and make sure that we do this ourselves.
The
right thing to do today is to vote in favour of this very strong resolution we
have brought before the House on behalf of generations of Newfoundland and
Labradorians, present and future, whose security hinges on how we respond to
this terrible piece of federal legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Windsor Lake, who will close debate on this motion.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we've heard valuable consideration and reflection from many Members in
the Chamber, from various sides, from various parties, and I thank all the
Members for their contributions and the wisdom that they've added to the course
of our deliberations.
I'd like
to refer briefly to the open letter, in my remarks, that Premier Peckford
provided to the hon. Premier on Sunday in which he points out that over 30
sections of the 68 sections of the Accord relate to joint management. Of course,
the subject matter of what we're dealing with today is an initiative
legislatively by the federal Parliament to trench on and infringe rights of
joint management contained in the Atlantic Accord acts and the original Atlantic
Accord contractual deal.
In this,
Mr. Peckford lists some reasons which reinforce the idea that this federal
legislative intervention should be challenged in the courts. He says: There's no
pressing matter of national concern that necessitates the federal override in
this instance. In that, he's referring to a general federal power provided by
the Constitution. There's no pressing matter of national concern.
He goes
on to say that if one concept like joint management contained in several
provisions of the Accord – when he says several, he means 30 sections out of 68
– can be so violated, then the precedent is set that others can be violated too,
like the provision that the province receive royalties as if the offshore
resource were on land. Since the signing of the Accord, the province has
received over $20 billion because of this provision. So there he's pointing to
the slippery slope that we're on that if the federal government can unilaterally
intervene to enforce or force changes in the provincial mirror legislation, the
Atlantic Accord act, then what will they do next? It's joint management today,
it'll be fiscal arrangements the next day and other things the day after that.
I'd like
to briefly refer to remarks made to this House of Assembly which can be found in
Hansard May 6, 2013. These remarks
were made by the minister of Natural Resources, Tom Marshall, when he was
introducing Bill 1, which itself was a bill, An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And
Labrador Act regarding the safety of offshore workers. So what it means is the
Accord act has been amended before – at least twice before that I'm aware of.
And this had to do with occupational health and safety in the wake of certain
events.
In this,
the minister of the day, Mr. Marshall, reflected on the wisdom of dividing the
jurisdiction over the offshore between more than one regulatory authority. This
has been looked at and considered before. And I just want to refer and read into
the record to remind Members of what Mr. Marshall observed.
He said:
“The Accord Acts make safety a paramount consideration.” And then he goes on to
say that “on February 15, 1982, the Ocean Ranger capsized on the Grand Banks.
Eighty-four people were on board, and there were no survivors. I think everyone
here remembers where they were when that tragic event happened. Mr. Speaker,
there were few families in this Province who were not touched by the tragedy. A
Royal Commission was set up on March 17, 1982, and it was chaired by Chief
Commissioner T. Alex Hickman, then the Chief Justice of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Supreme Court.
“Mr.
Speaker, the commissioner's report recommended ways to improve safety in the
Newfoundland and Labrador offshore industry. The Ocean Ranger commission
undertook a detailed analysis of offshore safety issues by commissioning
studies, meetings with the professional experts in the field of safety from
academia and industry. They held public hearings. They visited offshore rigs,
training facilities, and emergency facilities, and they participated in safety
meetings with people who worked on the rigs.” These were the words of Minister
Marshall in 2013.
“The
Ocean Ranger commission concluded, ‘…the single window approach would appear to
be the best institutional arrangement for regulating offshore oil operations,'
as long as appropriate steps, such as ‘…establishment of a Safety Branch within
the single regulatory agency…' were taken.”
Mr.
Marshall himself says then: “I think that it is very interesting to note,
because we subsequently had another report after the Cougar helicopter crash,
the Wells commission, the Wells inquiry, and he has recommended something
different.
“He has
recommended that there be a solely independent safety regulator separate and
independent from C-NLOPB.” So this kind of separation of regulatory authority
has been reflected on, recommended, considered before. “It was interesting that
the Hickman inquiry, the Ocean Ranger commission, concluded that a single window
approach would be the best arrangement for regulating offshore oil operations,
but they did recommend that there would be the establishment of a safety branch
within C-NLOPB.”
The
Hickman commission, in connection with the single regulatory agency, stated that
competing jurisdictions, administrative overlaps and lack of co-ordinated,
consistent policy are diminished by dividing jurisdiction. The Hickman
commission recommended that Canada maintain the approach of a single regulatory
agency in concept and in practice.
So this
has been considered and recommended on before by the Hickman commission. It's
interesting to note – and I'm following again the remarks of the former minister
– Rowland Harrison, a prominent lawyer, former director general of the
Government of Canada, led a task force to review the recommendations of the
Hickman commission and other things.
That
task force also noted that: “In addition to overlaps and duplication among
multiple authorities, a division of jurisdiction also raises a serious risk of
gaps in the regulatory system.” So that's yet another body making a
recommendation. Mr. Marshall says this is very important for us to note. This is
a quote from the task force report: “These may appear as gaps in the conferral
of the jurisdictions of the respective authorities. They may also appear as a
consequence of confusion about the extent of the jurisdiction conferred or even
about the exercise of a conferred jurisdiction.” It goes on in that vein.
Mr.
Marshall summarizes: “So at that point the recommendations were that
there would be a single regulator. There were concerns that if regulatory
authority were dispersed over more than one agency, there was a possibility, not
only of overlaps of duplication, but a dangerous potential for gaps in the
system.” And I leave my
quotation from the remarks on the second reading of an act to amend the Accord
legislation – I will leave off right there. Again, this was on May 6, 2013.
So here
we come again to an initiative of the federal government to divide jurisdiction
and have more than one regulatory agency and to intervene in the disposition,
the settlement that was arrived at after long legal fights and long political
negotiations by leading politicians of this jurisdiction and of the country of
Canada which resulted in, I'll call it, a quasi-constitutional settlement by
which we were awarded the right, we achieved the right, we negotiated the right
of joint management, which has repaid us now, to the tune of more than $20
billion contribution towards jobs and hopes in this jurisdiction, towards
prosperity, towards self-respect and our ability as a jurisdiction within Canada
to contribute to a greater Canadian federation.
I,
therefore, call upon this House to endorse the resolution before it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
First of
all, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
amendment is accepted.
All
those in favour of the resolution, as amended.
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
amended resolution is approved.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
House
Leaders, call in your Members, please.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
First of
all, all those in favour of the PMR as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bennett,
Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil,
Mr. Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway
Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Tibbs, Mr. Forsey and
Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the amended
resolution, please rise.
CLERK:
Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 32; and the nays: three.
MR. SPEAKER:
The amended resolution is
approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As per
the Standing Orders, normally we would close this House as of 5 o'clock, but
with leave of my colleagues I would ask that we continue on with regular
business.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the hon. Government
House Leader have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you to my colleagues.
At this
time, I would recall, with leave, from the Order Paper – actually, it's not on
the Order Paper – the Concurrence Motion for the Estimates Committee for Social
Services.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today representing the great District of Placentia West -
Bellevue and all its great constituents. I have a couple of comments I guess.
Obviously, I'm a rookie and I'm just taking notice of a few things. This is new
to a lot of us and stuff like that.
When we
came in, I guess we offered out an olive branch and the message we received loud
and clear was that 42 per cent of the province's electorate that we represent on
this side of the House don't matter and are not being listened to. I've also
heard that we're the ones getting blamed for playing politics, but we're not
playing politics at all, it's just that we don't agree with the budget as it was
presented. We put out eight action items, as of which none were adhered to. So,
in the spirit of collaboration, I really need to get a definition from the other
side of the House.
When the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board talks about the action items
and he talks about the Premier being a real leader and stuff like that, I think
real leadership would find ways to pay for it instead of asking the Opposition
how to do their job.
Just so
that you understand where we're coming from, I think the thing is we're all
asking for extra services, but nobody is focusing on the economy. Because if we
focus on the economy and we get people working, then that is where the money is
going to come from. It's not that we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Look at
all the infrastructure we have. Are you not interested in blowing the dust off
that and getting people back to work? That's what we're asking you to do. We're
not asking you for more services. We're not asking you for something over the
moon that we can't attain. We're asking you straight up that we want to work
with you, but you guys have to want to work with us too.
The
dramatic, seeing the theatrics – communication is obviously lacking. There's no
new approach here if you're not going to communicate. Do you know what I mean?
The childish approach with the theatrics and stuff like that, it's appalling to
be quite honest. It's not something that is becoming of this House.
When the
other side talks about reducing taxes, no, you're not. You can stop saying that
as soon as you can because you implemented the taxes. If you take away those
taxes, you're just taking away something that you implemented, so it's not
reducing taxes. It's just taking away something that you burdened the province
and the constituents of the province with: 300 fee increases and taxes. It
doesn't make any sense.
Something I think that needs to be said is that we didn't say anything about
cuts are needed for the economy. We just want no more giveaways. We want to
bring industry here, but we want to make sure that it's utilized to the best of
our potential for our people. It's our resources. Let's stop giving it away.
We don't
need to prop up Ontario and Alberta anymore. They're already full of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Now, we have a project down in Corpus Christi,
Texas. We only have 110 working in Cow Head and we have 750 working down in
Corpus Christi, Texas. So, I guess it's the government's prerogative that
instead of worrying about our own economy, we may as well prop up Texas.
One of
the biggest things that we need to realize too is about diversifying the
economy. I've heard people talk about diversifying the economy. You don't take
oil money and put it into the oil industry. That's not diversifying the economy.
You take oil money and you put it into another industry so that you can get that
industry going and get it up to its full potential. That's what diversifying the
economy is.
Why
don't we take some of the oil money and put it into Nalcor? That would be
diversifying the economy. Once we start getting some dividends from Nalcor, now
we can start diversifying the economy with our fishery or with our oil; but if
we take the money that we're making from Nalcor and put it into Nalcor, no,
there's no diversity there. If we take money out of the oil industry and we put
it back into the oil industry, no diversity.
What we
need to do is we need to focus further on the economy to expand the economy, not
just go along with the little run-of-the-mill giveaways that we're used to. We
need to increase our economy. That's what needs to happen with Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I come
from a generation of giveaways. Next year, I'll be 50 years old. That's 50 years
of giveaways. It's enough; enough is enough. Like I said, in my district alone,
I have Long Harbour. I have Bull Arm. I have a state-of-the-art fish plant in
Arnold's Cove that's world renowned and world class. I have, as I said, Bull
Arm. I have Cow Head and I have the Marystown Shipyard. Those industries alone,
if we could get those up to capacity, you don't have to worry about increasing
taxes, you wouldn't have to worry about the levy and the increase on insurance.
They'll be forgot about, just for the simple fact that people can afford them.
I'll
finish on saying this. A quote from Winston Churchill says that taxing your
citizens out of debt is that same as standing up in a bucket with your two feet
in the bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle. It's just not
possible. It's not going to work and the people are sick of it. It's time for a
new opportunity. If you want to have a new approach forward, then come up with
something better.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
just going to be a few minutes here as we wrap up in Concurrence debate and as
we reach the close of this session. I just want to remark on a few comments on
the budget. I'm going to be soft today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. PETTEN:
I know Members opposite don't
really think that's coming, but I'm going to be very mild today.
We
talked about the budget and a lot of things have been said, so I don't have to
repeat all that, but the budget debate is what it is and we've made our stance.
We stood this morning and voted against the budget.
The good
things in the budget are good things, and we don't mind saying that. The reason
we voted against the budget was there were things that we felt that the people
who elected us wanted and voted for us for a reason and they supported our
policies, they supported our Blue Book,
they supported what we had to offer, and it was incumbent upon us to vote in
favour of what the people who voted for you – it's just a natural progression;
that's what we're here for.
There
were things that we put forward. There were nice words, we're willing to work
with you and all the right words were said, but actions needed to meet the
words, and that didn't happen. We had lots of discussion in our caucus room
about it and I believe, at the end of the day, you have to be very principled.
If you stand on your principles and your morals, you'll never go wrong. I've
always said that if you follow your gut, your gut will never mistake you, never
lead you wrong, and I think collectively we all sat around the room and we
agreed we could not in clear conscience to support the budget.
As for
the fact of protecting the government from falling, that's a government issue,
that's the sitting government in a minority Parliament. If they don't want to
fall, they work with all sides to make that happen. Now, they got through the
budget vote, so good for them. On a go-forward basis, there are a lot of things
have to happen in the next year or two, Mr. Speaker. There has to be a lot of
conversations. But our issues will not go away. I said in this House there
yesterday, I believe, I'm not giving up on the 1.6, we're not giving up on
insulin pumps and we're not giving up on asking for taxation to be reduced. We
will not give up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
That I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker. If anyone in this House knows me, and know the Members, and they're
getting to know our new Members, there's the same tenacity that I show, and
these other people have the same tenacity. I've been accused at times of being a
dog on a bone, and I'll take that as a huge compliment, because I will not wake
up one day and say I'm not going to fight for something anymore. That's not the
way I'm wired. I've never been wired that way. Since I've been old enough to
walk and talk, that's who I am, and I'm not giving up on any of the things that
I feel are important to me and the people I represent, and that I'll make no
apologies for.
In
saying that, you hear just a couple of friendly jabs, but the blame game
has to stop, Mr. Speaker. We're entering the end of this session and, in the
fall, we'll come back to another session which will be more legislation, but the
people have heard enough of this blame game. Not only us as politicians, the
people have heard enough of it. Every time a Member opposite gets up and throws
the blame game around – I'm not even going to name any Members or ministers, I'm
not going at it. They know who I'm talking about. It's old. This is the second
term for this administration now; they're in their second term. The blame game
is done. People have had enough of the blame game. I think that's something that
they need to learn.
I heard that at the doors during the election. So on a
go-forward basis, every time I hear blame the other crowd, you crowd, it's old.
I mean, I can argue with the best of them in here. I can get up and go on my
rants; people have seen me do it. What are we doing that for?
Why are we standing up? Why are you saying you crowd? We're proud people, every
one of us in this House. We're not you crowd. We're all elected MHAs in this
House who represent different parties but we're not you crowd.
You
check Hansard, I've never once used
that term to refer to any other Member in this House of Assembly. You're the
government, you're the Liberal Party, you're the Third Party, you're an
Independent, I don't agree with everything, trust me I don't, but I try to be as
respectful as I can when it comes to that sort of stuff. Yeah, we've had our
rows, we've had our go back and forth, but I also try to be respectful and if
I'm not respectful, I'm man enough to go that Member or that person and say so,
and pass my apology.
That's
just my piece of advice, a little thing and a parting shot, but I think that's
something that we all need to look at, and especially the people who are at
this, they need to look in the mirror and say we need to move past that because
that's not what the people voted for and that's not what they want. That's what
they got sick of. That's what they wanted us to stop.
So, we
still hear it, and it's not as much – trust me, it's not as much, but it's still
there. People want answers to the questions and they feel their issues are
important enough for us to bring them to this House and someone should stand up
and give them the decency of an answer. That's another thing, on a go-forward
basis of understanding committees on those things – why don't we look at that
stuff? That's what people are looking for. They're sick of this nonsense
throwing blame around. They're sick of it.
I use
the word nonsense because a lot of it is, Mr. Speaker. It's absolute
foolishness. People want better and we should all aspire to be better. If one of
us are better, it makes it all better. If one of us goes down the gutter,
everyone are down the gutter. That's the things about this House. No matter what
party you're with, if you go high, we all go high; if you go low, we all go low.
That's what people need to realize, every Member.
As my
time is winding down I do want, on my point, to say I do hope everyone does have
a nice summer and I'm expecting to see everyone back in full form in November.
As schools are getting out tomorrow, I want the children to be safe and everyone
have a safe and healthy summer, happy summer, and I'll see you back here in the
fall.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, that'll be my last words for this sitting of the House.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
grateful for the opportunity to speak to Concurrence. Myself and the Members
here of my caucus have sat through all of the Estimates and I must say that was
a very, very good experience, albeit somewhat grueling. One of the benefits of
having sat through all of the Estimates is you get intimate perspective on what
each department does and the programs that it offers and the way in which they
operate.
So much
like being an economist, we learn perspective in economics and we can learn the
perspective of government, we learn the perspective of business, we learn the
perspective of individuals, and we can apply the fundamental principles of
economics, which is simply the study of choice. So if we were to apply those
perspectives across our government departments, there are a number of areas
where we see good initiatives being undertaken. I must applaud the Members for
coming up with some reasonable initiatives that are being undertaken in albeit
very trying times.
We do
recognize that we do have some significant fiscal constraints, and a great deal
of our fiscal constraints are well outside our control. As I've spoken to
before, oil prices are outside of our control. The exchange rate is outside of
our control. Our resource prices are outside of our control. The interest rates
in the national economy are outside of our control. In that context, we have to
build a budget based very strongly on resource prices. So that takes a great
deal of delicate balance.
Now, if
I want to get into this in a bit more detail, let's talk specifics about the
budget because it's very easy to talk very generally in a macroeconomic term but
sometimes we need some of the more tangible issues and ideas. As I was sitting
in each of the government Estimates, I noticed there were a number of
initiatives that certainly span across the silos we see that are represented by
government departments.
One in
particular was a bit of an eye-opener for me, certainly. I heard there were a
couple of government departments that do have pots of grant money and one of
which was using another assessment, a group of individuals who assess the
availability and awarding of grants. I laud that. I think that is an excellent
idea where we minimize the duplication of resources and we take the talents of
individuals who are capable of assessing those grants and apply those grants.
If we
wanted to take this a step further and if we want to look at true collaboration
or if perhaps we wanted to do something utterly radical and say, make things
non-partisan, for example, perhaps we could take these pots of money and put
them together and have one grants assessment agency do all of the assessments
for all of the grants in government departments. Sure, we could have different
criteria for the grants that come out of each of the different departments but
to be truly independent and to be truly non-partisan, we could actually have a
single individual department or agency administering those grants. I think that
would be a revolutionary idea.
Another
thing I saw that was a bit of an eye-opener for me; in Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour they administer the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement. A
wonderful, wonderful initiative. It enables individuals who are low income to be
able to access additional money to have additional nutritional supports for the
mother and child, and at a critical time in their lives; however, the grant
assigned to that was not all spent this year.
In
Estimates, they said if you have some ideas how you could probably make this
work, then can you let us know? Immediately I suggested, why don't you go to the
Women's Policy Office and ask them to help initiate that and help roll that out.
Somehow the silos between the Women's Policy Office and Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour had not come together on that issue. That would be a
revolutionary idea. We would have actually gotten the money out to the
individuals who needed it had we taken that initiative one step further. So we
can collaborate within government departments.
Here's
another idea I had. How about we start talking between Transportation and Works,
and Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation? Yes, we had brief discussions
about the importance of our tourism industry, but I retold the story of a family
vehicle that was travelling out over Roaches Line ahead of me with
out-of-province plates on. They had a fold-down camper and they were making
their way down Roaches Line. The fold-down camper was shaking and shimmying so
much so that they had to pull off before that fold-down camper popped out like a
Jiffy Pop on a campfire. It was looking like that.
Wouldn't
it be a boon to our tourism industry if works, services and transportation not
only sent a whisper of pavement down but, in fact, had a sound and resounding
statement about that pavement and, in fact, gave it a firm pat on the back to
tamp it down? Wouldn't we have better pavement so that people coming in to enjoy
the wonderful tourism in our province would have a better experience? So perhaps
collaboration between departments like that would give us a better sense.
Now, if
we want to be even slightly more radical than that, how about we take
Environment and – who are they with now – Municipal Affairs, and Natural
Resources, and we combine that with Transportation and Works? We talk to
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and we say how about we electrify this
province and create a co-op, provincially owned by the individual citizens of
this province, and create a co-op that puts electrical generating stations all
across this province, and we do that in collaboration with all of the
departments that I have just mentioned here.
Wouldn't
that be a wonderful initiative? Where we are coming out ahead of green energies,
we are finding a way to get us off the dependence of oil, we are putting money
back into the people of the province's hands, and we are giving jobs to people
in this province who do not have jobs right now.
That is
a collaborative initiative that we can use with several people who are already
working in these areas. Wouldn't that be radical? Wouldn't that put the
ownership back into our own people's hands and our own authority? I think those
are excellent ideas; however, they have not yet been broached.
There
are a number of other things we can talk about when we want to talk about
collaboration. Certainly, when we go through the Estimates process we go through
a line-by-line discussion of why we spent this much money here and why we spent
this much money here. Then we can go to the Auditor General and the Auditor
General can say, well, perhaps you shouldn't have spent that money there, or
that was a poor allocation of the money, or the consequences of your policy
decision was poor and they have left us with an environmental disaster or an
enormous cost to our ratepayers and taxpayers.
If we
went so far as to say, well, instead of being reactionary to our policy
decisions, let's be proactive and let's put in place something like a
parliamentary budget officer who not only do they provide education and training
to new MHAs, as well they give policy guidance and advice. A parliamentary
budget officer would be the person you would go to first to ask their opinion on
the possible negative ramifications of policy decisions that are made.
That
would be a pre-emptive step in our decision making and our policy. So we
wouldn't be left with environmental disasters or rate mitigation concerns or
joblessness because we are dependent on resources outside of our control. These
are smart things that we can engage in right away that can prevent serious
repercussions, negative repercussions into the future. I would like to see these
types of initiatives being considered as we move into the next budget process.
Also, I
would like to point out that there is $111 million – that is $111 million –
parked in the Department of Natural Resources for what we hope will be the
sanctioning of Equinor's next project. We do not know that this is guaranteed.
There is still no decision from Equinor; yet, our people are crying out for food
security. Our people are crying out for home support. We're crying out for
roads, and we have $111 million parked in a government department right now.
This is
not necessarily prudent use of our resources. So I think we really need to
reconsider how we go about allocating our budgets and how we go about
collaborating, interdepartmentally, but also collaborating across the House.
In the
House we, of course, have had some suggestions on the part of my colleagues here
to my left, as well as our caucus has also made some very good, very legitimate
no cost suggestions that we can initiate right away. If we want to talk about
true collaboration that does not have a cost associated with it, we can start
making very small legislative changes, things like making pay equity
legislation, things like gender and diversity criteria on agencies, boards and
commissions. These are no-cost issues.
We can
move towards even greater democratic reform by fixing and sticking to an
election date that will reduce stress on the public service and all of the
people that have to prepare for an election, as well as all the people who need
to do all of the prep work after an election is done. So it minimizes the
upheaval for the people of the province and it minimizes the upheaval of the
people who deliver the public services on which we so rely.
Mr.
Speaker, while I have some serious concerns about some of the issues in the
budget, while I also have some concerns, and as my colleague spoke out earlier
we did not support the amendment regarding C-69 because we see that there are
other opportunities beyond environmental or resource development that has
negative environmental consequences, such as we have enormous potential for
secondary and tertiary processing that do not necessarily have environmental
issues associated with that, there are ways in which we can stimulate our
economy that does not mean environmental devastation or the cost of life and
limb to our next generations and even our own generation.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out that, as a caucus, we have allowed the budget
to pass and we believe in supporting the fiscal and the sustainability of the
province. We are all for a stable, strong provincial economy. We want to
encourage businesses to come here and show them that we are a stable government,
that we are open for business, that this is a good place to come, get a job,
raise a family and have a living. However, we want to see movement towards
increased collaboration into the future and we would like to see collaboration
across the House, in all facets of the House, as we go into preparing budget
2020.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
honoured to be able to stand here today and speak to this particular aspect of
the entire budget process. I know I have 20 minutes on the clock, but my goal is
to take somewhere around 10 minutes to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I am not even started and I'm
getting heckled.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just
some observations that I've made over this period – when you're doing this
process, it feels a lot longer than what it actually it, but I don't think I've
actually spoken since I spoke to Interim Supply starting off or maybe spoke
early on. But what I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that I've listened, whether
here in the House or on the video recording, to every speech. I've actually
listened or read – if I never had a chance to hear what somebody said in the
House, I actually had a chance to read their speech in
Hansard, and I felt that was important.
So I've
had an opportunity to listen. I can say, having sat on the Opposition side and
sat on this side, there are times back in the day when you'd get up and somebody
might get a bit fiery in their speech, you had that urge to stand up and fire
back, and things would go back and forth, but this session we haven't seen a lot
of that. What we've seen are people putting forward their positions, their
points of view, agreeing, disagreeing – that's fine.
But I
did want to point out just a couple of things here that I took from the
different points that I heard. What I will say is that I appreciate the thought
– I do feel that there is a desire to work together from all Members. Sometimes
that doesn't come across in the speeches. That's the reality is that there's
always a bit of politics at play in this. That's the nature of this that we're
in. I get that, but I do think there's a sense of collaboration.
I don't
want to speak too highly of him, because it might go to his head, but my time
working with the Opposition House Leader as well as the House Leader for the
Third Party, as well as the independent Members, nobody sees that. That's not in
the House, that's not on TV. And again, I should go to the Deputy House Leader
too before I make him upset. But we've managed to work together to make this
House operate and to get these things happening. At the end of the day, whether
you agree with the budget or not agree with it, we've managed to make the
process work. So there is that spirit of collaboration that is there.
Now,
what I will point out, though, and I think I have to do this, and I think it's
incumbent on me to do this, again, having listened to what everybody has said
here, the one thing I noticed when listening to my colleagues in the Official
Opposition is that there has been a disciplined approach that they've taken to
this. Their message, which I think was made clear in their leader's letter – the
eight-point letter, we'll call it – emphasized their concerns and the things
that they felt were important.
I think,
as an Opposition, they have stood up and you've seen that in most of the
speeches that have come forward. You've seen that disciplined nature. But I have
noticed times when that discipline has broken down and I felt that it has
resulted in contradictions. So, for instance, at one point today we heard a
speech that was very much – actually, I think the quote was leadership is
finding the money and talking about – again, it was multiple references to 2016,
multiple references to taxes. The very next speech said: People don't want to
hear the blame game.
I want
to make sure again that sometimes we get these contradicting messages. It's
funny; I've heard multiple quotes again from Churchill. I like that; I enjoy
history. Anyone who has read about Churchill, it's amazing. It's not as good as
my favourite quote because we talk about fiery speeches. A person said: I want
to get a bit more fire in the speech. Sir Winston said: Well, maybe you should
put that speech in the fire.
Sometimes when we hear this stuff, the fact is we have to point that out. Now, I
think it's fair, upon me again, as someone who's listened to this, to point out
that if we are going to talk about the spirit of collaboration, we have to
eliminate the contradictory messages that sometimes we receive.
I've
looked at some of the notes here. Again, I look at talking about just some of
the stuff we've heard: indecision. There's an indecision problem. We talk about
the cuts and the budget of 2016, but at various points I've heard people say we
don't want to go back in history, but I also don't think it's accurate to
reference a budget that's three years old without talking about what led up to
it.
Earlier
today during the speeches, I heard it said, 50 years of giveaways. Do you know
what? That's fair to say that, but if we're going to use 50 years of history and
we're going to use three years of history, we have to use all that context as
well that led up to what was undoubtedly an unpopular budget; 2016 was tough.
I'm
going to use that as a segue when we talk about leadership. I'm speaking here
now – I'm not supposed to point it out, but the Premier's not here. He's at the
Premier's Athletic Awards. Do you know what? Sometimes I want to say leadership
is many things to many people, but leadership is also making the tough decision
that you know is not popular. Leadership is doing something that you know is not
in your best interest, but is in the best interest for those people down the
road.
What I
can point out, and certainly there has been lots of opportunity, we all have
faults and, certainly, the Premier of this province has his, but what I will say
is that he had no problem making many tough decisions that were completely
unpopular. There's nothing fun about it, but we all know that there was a need
to do that.
Now, I
get the political side of pointing that out, don't get me wrong. I sat on the
Opposition side, I had an opportunity to do that as well but what I will say, I
think true leadership is not always worrying about yourself but it's worrying
about the well-being of others.
I will
tell you, there is no doubting that the Premier of the province has tossed aside
the worries about himself for the worries of others. I can guarantee you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The other thing I'll point
out – again, in the spirit of collaboration. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, I
point these things out but it's not about taking a shot, it's just pointing out
when we talk about collaboration. I think one of the things we do need to work
on – and it's the thing I noticed, and I go back to one of the speeches I heard
earlier in this process. It talked about, these are the things we want to do and
we want to collaborate, but if you don't we're going to pull the plug. We're
going to pull the plug on you, and pull the plug usually has a very negative
meaning and usually it relates to somebody that's ready to go.
We heard
a speech from one Member where he mentioned the term reprieve. Now, reprieve,
when you look at the definition, usually applies to the criminal death sentence,
when somebody is going to get punished for death. When I look at some of the
comments that we've made where we're not going to take that, we're putting you
on notice. What I would suggest is I do think there's a way to get the point
across without using language that leads to death.
We
cannot talk about collaboration on one hand, in one speech, and on the other
hand talking about heads on platters. They are mutually exclusive. They do not
exist together. So what I would say – because I have no problem, I have
absolutely no problem with negotiation, with collaboration. Again, I point out
all the positive collaborations that I've had just in this session, working with
Members on the other side, the meetings that you don't see. The meetings talking
about legislation that is something that matters to a person. You don't see it
here on the floor; that goes on.
I get
having served in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What I will say is I know the
position sometimes you have to take, but I will say as a Member of government,
we will not negotiate at gunpoint.
Again,
we talk about quotes, and I love them. We talk about JFK, one of the greater
presidents of the last century. We talk about how we must not fear to negotiate,
but we cannot negotiate in fear. So I point that out here, that I look forward
to the continuing collaboration, but I would point out to Members that sometimes
in standing up and making our point for our districts – and I do not fault
anybody for that. Lord knows, I've done that plenty of times.
What I
will say is when we talk about wanting to collaborate, we have to remember that
sometimes when we get in those fiery moments that it's hard to collaborate at
times when you think that you're on the defensive. So what I would say is I
think going forward, I think there are a lot of good points that Members on the
other side make of all parties and independents. Do you know what? They make a
lot of strong points.
I know
for a fact that Members on this side – because we have shown it. We are willing
to do it. We will continue to work together, we have to. We are going to work
together, but what I will say is that of all of my sessions in here, this has
been a very, very positive one.
As
someone who has sat here, I look at some Members who have been here longer, but
I can tell you the tone and the co-operation in the room, just the tone in the
air, is a lot different than even it was eight years ago. It's a lot different,
and I think that's something positive that we can take from this.
I'm very
happy to speak to the budget. I'm very happy that I get an opportunity to speak
in this House, and on that note I'll take my seat.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further speakers?
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that the report of the Social Services Committee be concurred in?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delaying for
a moment because my trusted Clerk is on her way back.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Speaker, I have received a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER:
All rise, please.
I have a
message dated June 21, 2019:
As
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit
Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year
ending 31 March 2020, by way of further Supply, and in accordance with the
provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of
Assembly.
Sgd.:
_________________
Lieutenant-Governor
Please
be seated.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader, that the message be referred to a
Committee of Supply.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the
Chair.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (REID):
Order, please!
Considering the bill and related resolution, Bill 4.
Resolution
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty
for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year
ending March 31, 2020 the sum of $2,622,521,200.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, resolution carried.
CLERK:
Clause 1
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 4 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 4
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.
CLERK:
The schedule.
CHAIR:
Shall the schedule carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, schedule carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain
expenses of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial
year ending March 31, 2020 and for other purposes relating to the public
service.
CHAIR:
Shall the preamble carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, preamble carried.
CLERK:
An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain
Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2020 And
For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the resolution and Bill 4 carried without amendment?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent
thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the total contained in the
Estimates in the amount of $7,576,549,700 for the 2019-2020 fiscal year be
carried and I further move that the Committee report that they have adopted a
resolution and a bill consequent thereto.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of
$7,576,549,700 for the 2019-2020 fiscal year be carried and that the Committee
report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise and
report progress, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Chair of the Committee of the
Whole, Deputy Speaker and Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have
passed the amount of $7,576,549,700 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the
2019-2020 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a
bill be introduced to give effect to the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole
reports that the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a
certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to
same.
When shall
the report be received? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the resolution
be now read a first time.
MR. 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.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to the Her
Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial
year ending March 21, 2020 the sum of $2,622,521,200.”
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the resolution
be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this 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.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty
for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year
ending March 31, 2020 the sum of $2,622,521,200.”
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to
introduce the Supply bill, Bill 4, and I further move that the said bill be now
read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have
leave to introduce the Supply bill, Bill 4 and that the said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce the Supply bill, Bill 4, and that
the said bill be now read a first time?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying
Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31,
2020 And For Other Purposes Relating To the Public Service,” carried. (Bill 4)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act For Granting
To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The
Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2020 And For Other
Purposes Relating To the Public Service. (Bill 4)
On
motion, Bill 4 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the Supply bill be now
read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the supply bill now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act For Granting
To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The
Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2020 And For Other
Purposes Relating To the Public Service. (Bill 4)
On
motion, Bill 4 read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the Supply bill be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the supply 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.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act For Granting
To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The
Public Service For the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2020 And For Other
Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending
March 31, 2020 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, prior to adjourning, Mr.
Speaker, I think this is generally the customary point in time where House
Leaders or leaders have an opportunity just to say a few words, so I'll call
upon my colleague.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Government House Leader for this opportunity. Again, while we've been only
here a short period of time it's been a long sitting because we started back in
March; but in the last three weeks, while it's been primarily on the budget and
the related pieces of legislation relevant to that, we have come to having some
good debate in this House. We've come to some consensus on a number of things,
but I think we set the tone for the future over the next number of sittings in
the House of Assembly of how we're going to collaborate, how we're going to work
together, how we'll develop partnerships and how we'll come to a consensus on
the best way to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So,
again, I want to thank and congratulate everybody who got elected only recently,
for putting their names forward and standing to the serve the people in their
respective districts, and particularly at times having to make decisions that
may not be in the best interest of your particular district but serves the
bigger whole here when it comes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and
those are decisions that we end up having to live with over the next periods of
time, but there're in the best interest of serving the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I don't
want to belabour too much but I want to personally thank all the people who are
involved in the House of Assembly, the Table Officers here, the great work they
do. Keeping in mind, there are a lot of rookies here, including myself as the
Opposition House Leader, of learning the process, and there are little glitches
you may forget about but you get helped along very quickly or nodded to, to stop
now and move back and forth. So, I thank them for that.
I thank
the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and the Deputy Chair of Committees for their
work, particularly to all the other people here, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the
Pages, Hansard, the communications staff and the Broadcast Centre, all the
security that works within the House of Assembly to ensure that we're safe in
here, that things run smoothly, that everything that's at our disposal that's
needed is at a moment's notice that we can have access to, all the staff that
make things work for the House of Assembly. Also, particularly in our own
caucus, I have to thank the staff that we have there. They are diligently, day
and night, doing research for us, preparing questions to ensure that we have the
factual information we need to do our jobs in the House of Assembly.
My
colleagues here and our leader who – I won't note, but I will note – is like the
Premier, at a significant acknowledgement for the athletics in Newfoundland and
Labrador and couldn't be here, but on his behalf and on behalf of our caucus I
want to wish everybody a safe holiday as we go through the summer.
People
think it's a holiday and I wanted to correct that because people say: You're on
holidays now, are you? They don't realize now it becomes the 18-hour days. The
days in here are more structured, then it becomes 18 hours of dealing with
district issues, dealing with particular responsibilities you may have as a
minister or a Member of a particular caucus, or a critic, but also as a
volunteer because we all still volunteer in our roles here. We're always invited
to things that we have to take as a stake that's beyond what we signed on for as
part of our employment as representatives of the people, so we all take that and
they are the things that are more enjoyable and the things we do.
I also
want to thank – while we just got through Public Service Week – all the public
servants in Newfoundland and Labrador who make this great province of ours run
very diligently. There are times here we get up and we go back and forth with
questions and none of the questions are ever meant to be against a particular
part of the civil servants. It's about clarification. It's about can we find
better ways of doing it and it's about if somebody falls through the crack, how
can we help that civil servant who is providing that service do their job more
diligently and provide a better service. That's what we do here. When we ask
questions, we get answers and hopefully we come to a better solution.
On that
note, again, I want to thank everybody, wish everybody a good summer and we look
forward to seeing everybody maybe earlier than people would have suspected this
summer, but no doubt the fall when we sit again and particularly get into debate
about legislation that's going to improve the operations in the House and the
lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would
like to join my colleague in expressing my gratitude. The analogy I've come up
with: This experience is like riding a bike except the bike is on fire, I'm on
fire, everything is on fire.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. J. DINN:
We got basically a brand new
caucus and we bring to this experience a wealth of experience but not in this
capacity, so it was being dropped into learning of what it means to be an MHA,
how the House works, then on top of that dealing with the budget, and then
learning about the gruelling pace of the Estimates Committee so it's been quite
an experience.
I would
like to say, first of all, I come from a background with the NLTA, around the
executive, where we could debate things rather hot and heavy and it would be hot
and heavy. But, at the end of it, whatever decision we made we walked out of
there, we were one, and we had that social moment.
That's
the one thing I do enjoy about this. I think the Government House Leader has
made that very clear that there is an awful lot of stuff, side conversations
that go on beside collaboration of how do we work together, because we do have a
role here to fill in the government of being the government and being the
Opposition. Sometimes we will agree and sometimes we won't. And I'd like to
believe that we will agree on those times when we really do – we won't disagree
or agree because of politics but because of our personal beliefs.
I do
want to say thank you to all of our constituents who voted for us, and they put
a tremendous amount of trust in us here to do the right thing in this province
in recognizing the situation we're in. I think you would join in saying, even to
those who may not have voted for us, that we will earn their trust over the next
year or two years, three years, four years, and that we will actually work
together to earn their trust and their respect.
Debate,
I said, is hard. I'll also turn to the staff – I'll tell you one thing in terms
of the sessions that we've had here, the Estimates sessions that have gone on
five hours long at the end of a long day, it's very gruelling – it's one thing
for us who signed on to it, but to bring the staff in and then have to sit
through it and many of them don't always get to answer a question, but they have
to be there to support the minister, thank you.
For
those who offered the training sessions, those who've offered advice along the
way, for our own caucus support staff, as I think Gerry Rogers used to say,
we're a small but mighty caucus, and very much the same thing. So I have a
tremendous respect for all those who make this what seems to be a pretty
effortless operation move so slowly, but there's an awful lot of moving parts
that go on and a lot of people that go unsung. So thank you to those who made
this experience an interesting experience, to say the least.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll try
my best to be brief. As a smart politician once told me, when you're the last
thing between a bunch of people and freedom, you get out of the way.
What I
will say is I'm speaking right now – normally the Premier would be speaking, but
like a lot of Members of this House, he is at the athletic awards, which is an
important event, so I get the pleasure of speaking here. The point of speaking
right now is just to say a bunch of thank-yous, because we are here doing this
job that we're very lucky to do. I liken the House and what we do to an iceberg.
There's what people see, and then there's everything underneath that people
don't see but what makes this function.
To our
Table staff, Elizabeth, Sandra and Kim, I don't think people realize the
importance of these individuals, as well as those in the backgrounds out in the
offices, the Clerk's office, the Speaker's office, these people that are doing
work that's unseen, but we know their importance. To our Pages, thank you so
much for putting up with us and being here and I wish you the best this summer
as you move on to new endeavours and new opportunities.
To those
down there that are again behind the scenes, people doing the
Hansard, people doing the video
centre. I mean, these are people that sometimes we forget that they're down
there doing this job and waiting for us, so thank you to all those that are
doing that.
To all
of our caucuses and departmental staff, it doesn't matter who you are, every one
of those people, we owe a bid debt of gratitude to the work that they're doing.
Our caucuses are so important and our political staff, but also, as the House
Leader for the Opposition referenced, it's the non-political staff that are out
there doing great work, working all the time. So I want to thank them and thank
them for putting up with us. It's a hard job but when the House is in session,
everything becomes a bit more manic, a bit more frantic and a bit more anxious
because we need that work and we need it now, so I thank them for putting up
with all of us during this time.
I want
to thank – and again, sometimes we don't give them enough thanks – the members
of the media that are out there. They're out here covering this every day.
Sometimes we don't always like what they have to say, but they have an important
job, they do it well and I'd like to think, by and large, they're very fair.
We're very lucky in this province to have the media that we do, so I want to
thank all them for everything they've done.
I want
to say, again I've said it before, to the House Leaders, this House does not
function without co-operation, so I want to thank them. Both are fairly new to
the roles in taking it on, but you would never know. It's been like dealing with
experienced professionals. So we work very well together and I think that will
continue on so I want to thank them, as well as I worked with my colleagues and
the deputy, deputy House Leader. I want to thank them for making this House
function the way it does.
I guess
one of the big things I want to say to everybody is we're privileged to live
here, we're privileged to work here and 40 of us are in a group that is very
lucky. I was talking to a person the other day and sometimes you need that
perspective when you see a constituent that's down in the hospital that just had
to come here for a surgery or something else and we think about my God how good
do we have it, how lucky are we. So sometimes we need that, but that's a bond
that all 40 of us share. Every single one of us shares that. We all know what
that's like to deal with that.
What I
would say to my colleagues – and again, before I get to the final part, to our
new Members and to our new ministers on all sides I want to say congratulations
on a job well done. I got to tell you when you jump into this and go into the
budget process like we did, that's a lot to take on, that's a lot to learn but
you would never know that people were new because they carried themselves with
respect, with decorum, with understanding, with intelligence, integrity. It was
really good to deal with, so I appreciate that. We only get better. It's one of
those things, there's always something new but sometimes with that experience it
gets more interesting. So I wish them the best.
Before
we leave, I wish to all of us, but more importantly to every one of our family
members, I wish everybody safety. I hope everybody has a great summer. We're all
going to be busy. I'm sure we'll cross paths, but I wish everybody a safe and
happy summer. Enjoy it with your families.
We're
very lucky to be here. Before you know it we'll be back here going tooth and
nail at it again. I think the fact that we're all going to go out and enjoy
summer, doing the work that we do, serving the constituents that we serve, and
hopefully with our families and our friends by our side.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to my colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may take a minute, and
as is the custom, I'd like to wrap up with a few remarks and try to complement
what I've just heard from these eloquent speakers.
As I
said when I walked into this chair here just a couple of weeks ago, it is
definitely a different view sitting here. It's quite an interesting situation.
Now I have this 180-degree view in front of me and, frankly, we've never seen
that in this room ever. So it's quite fascinating. I've been tending to sit in
the chair somewhat this way and then looking over but there's a lot going on, on
both sides, and it's absolutely challenging and fascinating at the same time.
Sticking
on the analogy of the iceberg, there's also a lot goes on in this room that is
off the camera. For example, there's been a couple of times what I've mentioned
to the Pages, I said do you realize what's happening behind this chair right
now? Sometimes they've been aware and sometimes they haven't, but it's just
indicative of the good rapport and conversation and dialogue and there is a lot
of good working together here in this room. So I congratulate you all on that.
As
everyone else has done, these people in front of me – Sandra likes to refer to
herself as the furniture, but they're so much more than that. They are pretty
wise and very experienced furniture that guide all of us, both here on the floor
and before and after we come to this Legislature. So I have to thank them, and
all of the team that works very closely with us, so very much.
I guess
a final thought, and to the new Members, this is now my fourth year in this
political adventure. I have to say even after four years, I still don't feel
like a veteran, but you are learning new things every single day. I keep asking
these folks that work with me, the Table Officers, have we done this before?
They say: oh, no, this is new.
We keep
encountering new situations and so on, as I think we get more sophisticated and
we challenge ourselves to look at our parliamentary procedures and ensure that
we're staying to what was the initial intent and so on. Perhaps the next time we
see each other we will feel a little bit more like a veteran, but I don't think
that newness will ever go away. There will always be things to learn.
Finally,
I'd like to say, and on behalf of all of us, we are all MHAs. Regardless of the
role we play in this House, we all have constituents and family. To all of those
people, I say thank you very much for allowing us this honour to be here and
work and speak on your behalf. Have a great, safe summer.
I'll
turn it now to the Government House Leader.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
I would
move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that the
House do now adjourn until July 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
This
House does stand adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, the 23rd day of July, at
1:30 o'clock.
Thank
you.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 23, 2019.