October 27, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 58
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Are
the House Leaders ready?
MR.
CROCKER:
I
am, Sir.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Yes, Government House.
Opposition House, Third Party House Leader almost
ready?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Almost.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Okay.
Admit strangers and start the broadcast.
Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members' statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Harbour Main, Windsor Lake, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and
Stephenville - Port au Port.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This past weekend I had the honour of attending the
unveiling of a memorial sign in the Town of Brigus by the Brigus recreation
committee. This memorial was in memory of a young man from Brigus, who passed
away in Ontario on October 14 at 33 years of age.
Sergeant Herman Williams was a member of our Canadian
Armed Forces and although I did not have the privilege of meeting Sergeant
Williams, I departed this event feeling like a part of him was with me.
Sergeant Williams joined the Canadian Armed Forces at
the young age of 18. He completed four missions overseas, three front-line
combat mission tours in Afghanistan and one in Latvia peacekeeping throughout
his 14-year career.
I am sure we are all aware of how hard and mentally
draining these deployments can be on our young servicemen and women. I have
learned from Sergeant Williams' family many things about him, including that he
had an infectious smile and wore the uniform with pride and honour.
I ask all Members to join me in honouring Sergeant
Herman Williams for his service to his country and for the sacrifice he and his
family made for all of us to live as we do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge October as Breast Cancer
Awareness Month – an annual campaign that aims to educate the public on the
importance of early screening, testing and treatment for breast cancer.
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer
among Canadian women, with one in eight expected to be diagnosed in their
lifetime. I learned the importance of quality of testing when I saw what its
absence did to the lives of breast cancer patients and their loved ones. Not a
Member in this House is without friends or family who have fought a battle with
breast cancer.
Wear pink to show your support. October is dedicated to
all those who have lost the fight and all those who won't quit the fight.
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.
The Society of Saint Vincent de Paul – St. Teresa's
Conference has been serving the poor since 1968. Part of an international
Catholic lay organization founded in 1833, the conference is one of several
throughout the province.
Guided by the principle that no act of charity is
foreign to the society, the conference serves monthly food hampers to those in
need. Despite COVID-19, the members continued to serve their clients.
The conference is more than a food bank. It advocates
for the poor and offers financial assistance. It also established education
bursaries for the Murphy Centre and a Seeds of Hope initiative to help clients
set up RESPs for their children.
Eight years ago, in response to the deplorable housing
conditions witnessed by members, the conference took the bold step of building a
six-unit affordable housing project with support from the municipal, provincial
and federal governments. As the first conference to do so, it was unknown and
challenging territory, but necessary to provide safe affordable housing that
respects the dignity of people.
I ask Members to join me in recognizing the valuable
work the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul – St. Teresa's Conference does in
serving those in need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise, I
would like to wish Mr. Nelson Murphy, or as everyone knows him Nels, a very
happy 90th birthday.
Born in 1930 to Robert and Ester Murphy and one of 11
siblings, Nels lived his entire life in Paradise and has been married to his
wife Rose for 64 years. Together they have six children, 12 grandchildren and
eight great-grandchildren.
Nels worked all his life at construction. He worked at
building the roads and highways of the City of St. John's and portions of the
Trans-Canada Highway. He cleared snow off the Gaff Topsails to keep the trains
going on the railway and there were times at the end of shifts where it was so
stormy that they required guide ropes to get back to where they came from.
Farming is another passion of Nels. At the wonderful
age of 90, you will still see him tending his vegetable garden. Nels is a
well-respected member of the community and also a proud Korean War veteran.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing
Mr. Nels Murphy a wonderful happy birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When it comes to the youth of our region, Vanessa Lee
is a force to be reckoned with. She's an advocate on many levels and helps our
youth benefit directly or indirectly in whatever she does to help impact their
growth and development.
Vanessa is the Youth Engagement Coordinator at the
Community Youth Network in Stephenville. She considers herself lucky that her
work provides her the chance to support many organizations in our area with
which she has a personal connection. Her involvement with these programs
include: Kids Help Phone, Bay St. George Coalition to End Violence, the Bay St.
George Pride Committee, Stephenville Winter Carnival and Block the Bus,
providing school supplies to youth and families in need.
Vanessa works with and supports many community partners
in our district. No matter what function I attend, Vanessa is there. Along with
working and supporting all these groups and organizations, Vanessa finds time to
volunteer with the Leo Club, is a member of the local Lions Club and is a board
member of Stephenville Theatre Festival.
I ask all hon. Members of the House to join me in
congratulating Vanessa Lee of Kippens for her vision and dedication to the youth
of our district.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach International Human Rights
Day on December 10, the Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador is
seeking nominations for the annual Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Award.
This award recognizes an individual, living or
deceased, who has made and/or continues to make meaningful contributions to
advancing and furthering human rights in our province.
Mr. Speaker, each year the selection committee has a
difficult task of choosing between very deserving individuals. In 2019, the
Human Rights Award was presented to Jessie Lawrence, a 2SLGBTQ+ advocate and
youth activist, while Bridget Foster was named Human Rights Champion for her
over 30 years of service in the immigration and settlement sector. Other recent
award winners included disability advocate Kim White; Innu Leader Anastasia
Qupee; and Joanne Thompson, best known for her work at The Gathering Place.
Mr. Speaker, our province is full of people who work
tirelessly to advocate and advance human rights for marginalized populations in
our communities. I encourage people to take some time and consider nominating
community members, professional contacts and anyone who has contributed to the
diversity of our great province. The deadline for nominations is October 31, and
details are available online at
www.thinkhumanrights.ca.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
Mr. Speaker, our province is fortunate to be the home
of many activists, volunteers and champions who diligently and tirelessly work
towards progressing human rights. Jessie Lawrence and Bridget Foster are two
such individuals who have made positive impacts in our communities.
As the minister noted, the nomination deadline for the
2020 Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Award is quickly approaching. There
are only four days left to submit nominations. I ask all Members of this House
to reach out to organizations and contacts in their districts to ensure that
they are aware of the nomination deadline and to encourage them to submit a
nomination.
I look forward to hearing about the successful
recipient in December.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
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.
All individuals must be guaranteed the same fundamental
rights of equality, dignity and respect free from discrimination based on sexual
orientation, religion or race. Too often, the rights we have fought for are
taken for granted. From classrooms to artwork to advocacy to protests to climate
marches and so much more, the struggle to advance human rights is laudable and
often goes unrecognized, unfortunately.
I encourage all Members to nominate worthy individuals
in their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to highlight to this hon. House a new e-mental
health program to be piloted this fall in Newfoundland and Labrador by the
Strongest Families Institute.
Strongest Families is an award-winning charity,
endorsed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada and the Governor General of
Canada, which leverages technology and skilled coaches to deliver evidence-based
programs across the country to children, youth, adults and families.
Approximately 800 children and families here will
benefit from the Parents Empowering Kids – The Early Years program. The program
is designed to promote positive parenting skills and prevent behavioural
challenges in early childhood for children aged three to 12.
Funding of $520,000 for the program, which is free for
interested parents, was provided to the Strongest Families from the Public
Health Agency of Canada's Mental Health Promotion Innovation Fund. For more
information, visit the Strongest Families website, bridgethegapp.ca or call
toll-free: 1-866-470-7111.
Through Towards
Recovery, since 2017, the provincial government has secured $1.1 million
annually through the federal health accord for e-mental health programs. This
includes annual funding for Strongest Families.
Increasing access to evidence-based services via
technology has made Newfoundland and Labrador a leader in e-health and a prime
test ground for expanding these kinds of solutions.
We appreciate the work of Strongest Families and our
ongoing partnership. Good luck with the program. We look forward to hearing the
results.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister for an advance
copy of his statement.
Maintaining good mental health is important now more
than ever. A new e-mental health program will be quite beneficial to the people
of our province.
It is great to see 800 children and families that will
benefit from the Parents Empowering Kids – The Early Years program, but we must
find ways that allow more children and parents to become involved in this
crucial program. Programs such as Bridge the gApp allow our residents to connect
with the mental health professionals who can help with both children and adults
with their mental wellness. We must see more development to programs like these
as people such as rotational workers rely on these resources while in
self-isolation.
I join the minister in acknowledging the work of
Strongest Families and I wish them the best of luck with their new e-mental
health program. We also look forward to hearing these results so we can work
together and make changes that enhance the mental health of all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
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, and I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement.
It is uplifting to hear additional resources are being
made available to parents and children. The challenging times in which we live
have strained our mental health and well-being as well as our education system.
I thank the federal government for contributing
$500,000 to promoting parenting skills and to help prevent behavioural
challenges. I look forward to seeing how this e-program dovetails into our
existing mental health system to ensure a continuum of supports for parents and
children.
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, thank you.
Cenovus and Husky laid out their plans in a conference
call on Sunday. In an audio recording we obtained, the CEO says unless something
new happens West White Rose is not accounted for in their business model and
will not proceed.
Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier say yesterday that
this merger was hopeful and positive news for our workers?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, the CEO of Cenovus also said that the economics of this project are
okay and favourable. We will be working together with them and their partners,
Husky, to further advance this project for the women and men who work in this
incredibly important industry for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
That's a selective quotation, Mr. Speaker, because he also said the project
would be decommissioned over time unless something new happens. This is
devastating news to our oil industry and the many families who rely on it.
I ask the Premier: What help can he offer them?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's selective memory for sure and interpretation of
that call. We are continuing to work with – as the Minister of Industry, Energy
and Technology suggested yesterday – the partners to ensure that this project is
moving forward and we're committed to doing so.
In the short time that I've been here, we've secured
$320 million in order to help families through this tough time, and that's what
I'm committed to doing. That's what our government is committed to doing. That's
the right and prudent thing for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, the Husky business plan is looking at the scenario of decommissioning
unless something new happens, and there are only two new things that can happen:
one, the oil price increases or, two, there is government intervention.
I ask the Premier: What is he going to do under number
two, which is under his control?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite correctly identified, this is a
global commodity issue. Newfoundland and Labrador is not facing this issue
alone. We're hearing it from Aberdeen; we're hearing it from Houston. We're
hearing it from all oil-producing jurisdictions around the world.
What I will tell you is that we're looking to be
creative and using that $320 million to unlock new opportunities to support
families, not only now but well into the future. The oil and gas industry is so
incredibly important, not only for the economy but for society and the future of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, oil patch workers in this province are having to deal with this alone
because their government is missing in action.
I'm asking the Premier: What safeguard does his
government have on the $100 million of equity investment they've made?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for that question.
We're continuing to work with the stakeholders and with
the operators to ensure that we're protecting that investment moving forward.
That's paramount. More importantly, right now, we need to protect the workers in
the oil industry. We're looking at ways to do that, through the use of this $320
million, and other ways to protect this industry moving forward.
It would be very nice if we were in a different fiscal
situation; we weren't burdened with billions of dollars in other off-the-scale
debt from other projects, but the reality is we are. We need to work within our
fiscal envelope to ensure that we're developing good decisions now for the
future of this industry moving forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
The
executive director of Trades NL said yesterday there's not a lot on the horizon
over the next couple of years that we can count on for employment opportunities.
To the Premier: What is the way forward for these
workers?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, it's a concern that we're well aware of.
We've been in touch with Trades NL. In fact, we also heard from Noia who talked
about how they still have optimism. The fact is that this deal that was struck
over the weekend was not unexpected. In fact, if you look at any of the analysts
that talk about it, this is a move that, basically, created a stronger company,
one that we welcome into our offshore.
We continue to work with the workers, we continue to
find ways – and, again, we have $320 million. In fact, Husky has a proposal in
to us right now that we're working through that would, hopefully, see 2021 work
in the hopes of a 2022 start-up back at West White Rose.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, these people are without jobs, without income, many without hope.
Yesterday, the minister said legislation to unlock pensions will not happen
until next spring. I commit here today on behalf of our caucus, the PC caucus,
to sit as long as it takes this fall to pass this legislation.
I'd ask the Premier: Will he immediately bring forward
legislation to unlock pensions so people can access their own money to provide
immediate help and hope for their own families?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
After Question Period yesterday, I did talk with staff.
We are looking at if we can expedite it. I've been speaking with the House
Leader and we will certainly bring the House back, if possible, if we have a
recommendation around unlocking pensions.
I would, though, remind Members and the general public
that we're talking about pensions; we're not talking about extra money to buy
Christmas gifts. While many families are hurting, especially at Christmas, when
you think about pensions it's really about long-term financial stability, which
is something that will be taken into consideration in the consultations.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The director of the Harris Centre said that the decline
in the oil economy is comparable to the cod moratorium and he would not be
shocked that a similar mental health, family crisis impact is happening today.
Minister, what specific supports have been put in place
to help those that have lost employment?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I'll speak to the bigger issue, which is we do
have a serious situation that we face as a province. When you have a government
and a workforce that has been very dependent on this one resource, when we see a
worldwide pandemic like this, the fact is that we are especially hard hit. We
feel that here and we certainly feel for the workers. We've been speaking with
the various unions talking about the things we can do.
I'll leave it to the Minister of Health to talk about
the mental health supports that we can provide, and certainly I'll leave to the
minister responsible to talk about the employment side. What I can say is that
we have a scope of work in front of us that we're working through right now
where, hopefully, we can see some of the $320 million provided by the federal
government go to these workers in hopes of getting West White Rose and any other
project – again, we're working with multiple companies to see these workers back
to work, which is where we all want them to be.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Come By Chance is at risk of permanent closure. The
West White Rose project is at a standstill. Bay du Nord is deferred. Bull Arm is
now an aquatic storage facility. Workers are getting anxious; people are calling
our office every day looking for help.
Will the minister implement specific supports for those
who have lost their jobs as the result of the collapse of our oil and gas
industry?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that speaking with the unions
and different groups, that's not where they've asked us to go at this point.
What they've asked us to do is to work on the things
that we have in our control in order to get these projects up and going, and
that's what we've committed to; speaking last night with the various community
members regarding Come By Chance and we have work ongoing to deal with that.
Again, we're speaking to Husky every day; we're speaking to Suncor.
I can say that I do appreciate the fact that I do
believe union members realize we're doing what we can, how we can. I have an
email from the head of Unifor, it says: Thank you for the continued support for
the workers in the oil industry. It's greatly appreciated and not going unseen.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have emails too, Minister, to the contrary from
workers who are wondering where their next paycheque is coming from.
Individuals who are out of work are now asking
themselves: What do we do now? Mr. Speaker, I feel for those individuals who are
struggling to pay their mortgages, make their car payments and pay their bills.
Where is the help for these workers?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR.
BYRNE:
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister responsible for the energy sector said, our plan (a) is
to get the industry back in good form, productive form and that is what we are
concentrating on; however, as the hon. Member opposite did point out, there have
been job impacts and job losses.
What I can report to this House is our work with the
federal government through our Labour Market Transfer Agreements, our work with
our federal colleagues to make sure that we have the resources in place to be
able to respond to increased training needs to be able to allow workers to
pivot, not only within the industry, but potentially in some instances, outside
of the industry, but most importantly to be able to pivot within the industry.
We've been able to work with our federal partners to
gain additional millions in training benefits that we will be applying to areas
which we've seen job losses or job insecurity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One union president, Mr. Dave Mercer, said: “The
biggest thing we can do for mental health right now is – guess what? Let's get
back to work.”
Minister, workers need help; they need hope. Minister,
where is the job-creation plan for this industry? Those are all fine words just
said, but workers are looking for more than that.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I've had an opportunity to speak to Mr.
Mercer on a number of occasions. In fact, that's who I quoted previously, saying
that they realize that we're doing what we can. They fully realize that we're
not responsible for the price of oil; they fully realize that we're not
responsible for the pandemic.
At the same time, they've been very strong in
advocating for their members, which is why we're at the table every single day
trying to ensure that these companies come to us with a scope of work that can
be ongoing as soon as possible, involving hundreds of millions of dollars for
the direct purpose of getting these people back to work. That's what we're going
to do. However, that requires due diligence. That requires some effort.
We're not just going to hand the money out. We've had
Members opposite suggest just give everybody money, and we realize there that
sometimes that leads to bad decisions. We're going to do the due diligence to
make sure things get done properly.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask a question I didn't get an answer to
yesterday. In September 2019, the minister advised that the new paramedicine
delivery model with an effective date of April 1, 2020, would be delayed for two
years, adding more stress to the workers in this industry. We've had the Fitch
report of 2013, Grant Thornton audit of 2018, and the Ernst & Young report of
2019.
Is the minister going to ensure it sticks to the new
deadline and delivers a new model as promised?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Out of hospital, community-based paramedicine, these
are key pillars of moving forward with our community-based approach to health
care delivery. I'm pleased to be able to inform the House that the regulatory
apparatus around paramedicine will be moving into the Department of Health and
Community Services as soon as this budget process is completed. That way we can
align our algorithms and support our community paramedicine organizations in
terms of expanding their scope of practice and generally developing what has
been a very much underdeveloped resource.
I look forward to being able to present the House with
further information as that plans rolls out, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The union representing the largest portion of the
private operators are currently in negotiations and at an impasse.
I ask the Premier: Does he accept the inaction of the
minister over the past year with respect to private ambulance workers being
forced to take job action and strike?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The private ambulance operators are currently in
negotiations with the department over a new agreement. Whilst I will not be
negotiating in public, these are going very well. I would hopefully be in a
position to announce a resolution to those negotiations to everyone's
satisfaction very shortly.
The issue then of how the operators are negotiating
with their unions actually lies outside the control of the regional health
authorities and the department, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, we watch this with
interest.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've been hearing for two years that they were getting
close to a deal. We're not hearing that from industry and I'm hopeful that it
happens but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Premier: Are you comfortable that the ambulances will
be parked in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because of your government's
inaction and will you intervene to show leadership on this issue immediately?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Again, from the point of view of the department, we are
confident that these negotiations are in what one of my staff called a very
happy place and will actually be concluded very shortly.
We obviously watch with interest the negotiations
between those private operators and their unions, and if there's any role we can
play to facilitate what is a negotiation between a private company and their
trade union members, we would be happy to do that. As yet, Mr. Speaker, neither
party has approached us for any assistance.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That happy place can't come soon enough for the private
operators from the discussions we've had.
Transport Canada's recent rule forcing travellers to
exit their vehicles on provincial ferries is putting our travellers at a higher
health risk, as proper social distancing is not possible. The Premier of British
Columbia has stated that this is an unwelcome intrusion from Ottawa and has
committed to reverse this policy.
I ask the Minister of Health: Will he commit to doing
the same to keep our citizens safe?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member opposite for his question. Some time
ago I wrote the minister responsible for transportation, Transport Canada, to
ask them to reverse the decision. At this time, they have not decided to reverse
the decision.
We're advising everyone to practice social distancing
where possible, wear their masks, and get on the ferry and off the ferry in a
safe manner. Transport Canada had ruled it's safer for people to be in the
lounge and in the ferries because they are a closed-deck capacity. Open-deck
capacity ferries would be different, but these vessels we have in our province
right now, the vast majority are closed-deck vessels. Should there be an
emergency and evacuation, the safest place would be in the lounge so they could
reach the muster station areas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister is aware from travelling on these
ferries, it's not possible to do safe distancing safely on these boats with
social distancing because of the fact that the lounges themselves have been
taken up by crew members. This is not a safe endeavour there. We also ask that
you lobby your cousins in Ottawa to do the right thing when it comes to safety.
We've done it on the travel ban here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the past five years, not one inch of pavement has
been laid on Bell Island roads; barely a pothole has been filled. Portugal Cove
- St. Philip's has one of the highest traffic volumes on trunk roads in the
province; yet, roads like Bennetts Road, Old Broad Cove Road, Thorburn Road and
others are in deplorable condition.
Will the minister commit to investing resources to make
these roads safe in my district?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I didn't know when I could get the opportunity to respond to a
question such as this. The hon. Member yesterday for Mount Pearl North referred
to our provincial roads as over-paved. Not something that we support on this
side, Mr. Speaker. He referred to those provincial roads as being over-paved.
The hon. Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island
knows that there's an active tender right now in the process of being finalized
for his district. We're committed to doing that work. The tender work will be
done. The money is in the budget to do it. Sometime in the near future the hon.
Member should be proud to be able to take a picture of a piece of equipment
laying asphalt in his district, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
I will be, but the early tender process obviously hasn't worked, because we're
into November now and very unlikely we will get something laid for safety for
our roads. I do welcome it, so do the people in my district, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Was that a question?
Mr. Speaker, in the House last week, the hon. Member
for Terra Nova got up and asked a question of why we put all the tenders out the
one time. Today I'm asked why we're separating it. Which is it, Mr. Speaker?
Which works best?
We try to get the work out in a timely manner to
accommodate the people of this province, to do it the best way we can. Any time
there's construction, there's never a good time, Mr. Speaker. It will always
disrupt the service. The flow of traffic will always be disrupted. All I can say
about any time we're doing work in this province: Look forward to the end
result. I refer to it as something like making bread. I have flour all over the
kitchen table, but when it comes out of the oven it is well worth the reward,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Yesterday, the minister stood in the House and spoke about the important role
highway enforcement officers play in enhancing road safety in our province.
Can the minister explain why 10 of these positions are
currently vacant?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll certainly take away and look at those 10 positions
in particular. I know many of the highway enforcement officer roles are
difficult. There's a unique skill set that's required and there are often roles
that go unfulfilled. I do know that I believe there's an external competition in
Stephenville opening up next week for a highway enforcement officer position. So
I encourage – if you know anyone, to encourage them to apply on the government
website.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have to be aware that wintertime is coming and these
tractor-trailers and every other vehicle that's on the highway should be checked
out for safety inspections for sure. We should get on that right away.
Especially with the amount of jobs that people are looking for, it should be
easy to fill those positions.
Minister, how have these vacancies impacted road safety
across the province and what impact will these vacancies continue to have as
winter approaches?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.
Safety of residents in our province, especially on the
highways, is incredibly important. I'll be on the highway this year with my new
little guy, so safety is incredibly important for everyone.
To my knowledge, there is no disruption to service for
the highway enforcement officers. The highway enforcement officers take a very
unique role to enforcement, in partnership with the RNC, and we do not believe
that resident safety in the province is impacted by any vacant positions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, what priority is the department putting on
filling these positions that they are so critical to ensuring public safety?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Like I mentioned before, highway enforcement officers
are a unique skill set to hire. In many cases, we have roles that go
unfulfilled. We do have a role in Stephenville that's opening to the public next
week. I'd encourage anyone who believes they might be eligible, to apply, as
well as any other jobs that are currently or will become available.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
What would this unique skill set be that we can't fill these positions?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I know it's a bit nuanced but the highway enforcement
officers, I think there's a mix of technical – like ability with the vehicles.
For example, they're the experts who can say whether or not a muffler has been
modified, in consultation with the RNC. There's that technical and mechanical
expertise, plus then the enforcement side.
I'd be happy to get the Member additional information
on that.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the tourism industry creates a billion
dollars in revenue and creates some 20,000 jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
This year the industry lost 6,300 jobs, so I wouldn't clap too loud. Ninety per
cent of operators have seen reduced revenue and 70 per cent would not be
operating without assistance.
Will the minister commit to an enhanced tourism-focused
support package as requested by Hospitality NL?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for the question of a very
important industry to our province's future, as well as our past. I've worked
very closely, and this government has worked very closely with Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador, almost on a daily basis to work through issues that
the operators have been having. We incorporated a Tourism and Hospitality
Support Program, the biggest, single investment a government has ever made in
the tourism industry in our province of $25 million. We're working through that.
I think at this point we have 900 operators that have
already received funding. We look forward to receiving even more. I encourage
every hon. Member to encourage those tourism operators and hospitality operators
to apply to that program. It gets the money out very, very quickly, and I look
forward to having that out very, very quickly.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
I
thank the minister for telling us where we've gone, but we need to know where
we're going.
Mr. Speaker, the vice chair of Hospitality NL says the
industry is decimated.
What specific action will this minister take to help
the tourism industry in this province to survive?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to repeat the Tourism and Hospitality Support
Program, because that's one aspect. One of the other things we've done is work
with our federal colleagues to enhance those programs that would be impacting
those employees that would be affected, making sure those programs are extended.
We've been very successful on increasing the wage
subsidy, as well as increasing the duration of that, which is going to be hugely
beneficial to the tourism operators in this province. I understand their
concern; I feel their concern. That's why I'm on the phone with them almost on a
daily basis to try to best –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
DAVIS:
If
the hon. Member would stop heckling me, I'd be able to answer the question a
little bit better.
From the standpoint where I sit, we're working very
close with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and the operators and we're
committed to this industry, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Outfitters rely heavily on out-of-province hunters and many are telling me that
their businesses have all been stopped. The outfitting industry brings a lot of
revenue and employs a lot of people, particularly in rural areas of the
province.
Premier: What action will your government take to help
the struggling outfitter industry to survive?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
MR.
LOVELESS:
I
thank the hon. Member for the question.
It is a question of concern, and the outfitting
industry, like many industries, has certainly been affected by the global
pandemic. We referenced even in our debate last night around that. I met with
them yesterday. We had a good discussion around some of the options where we can
help that industry, and I'm committed to doing my best to certainly help them in
their time of need.
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.
Mr. Speaker, we're two months into this current school
year and the Minister of Education has already decided to cancel public exams
for semesterized courses.
Will he now make the decision to cancel all public
exams and do what teachers are telling me and level the playing field for all
students?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have indicated publicly, as well as in this
Legislature, that, yes, we did cancel public exams for January and we have a
very open mind about the public exams for June. We haven't made a decision on
that yet. We want to do what is in the absolute best interest of our students in
the province. I've been speaking with officials in the department and we will
have a decision on the June public exams very early in the new year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When schools closed in March it disrupted learning for
high school students and effectively brought many courses to an end. This
created knowledge deficits, which places teachers and students under enormous
pressure to make up this year.
I again ask the Minister of Education: Will he cancel
public exams? Make that decision now for all students and allow high school
teachers to focus on making up gaps in learning and on keeping students safe and
on nurturing their emotional well-being.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This question is coming from the same Member that
wanted us to have half a school year this year for students by having students
go on a rotational basis: half the students one day, half the students the next.
Mr. Speaker, public exams is an important issue. We
want to do what is in the absolute best interest of our children in school. As I
said, we will have a decision on this very early in the new year, but I'm not
going to rush to a decision such as having rotational classes without having it
well thought out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not talking about rotational classes. This is a Member who
supported rotational classes because of the lack of a plan by this government as
a way of easing into the school year, instead of putting teachers and schools in
such an untenable position.
I again ask the minister: What is preventing him from
making the decision right now? Make a simple, straightforward decision in this
unprecedented time that will not only remove unnecessary stress from students,
parents and teachers, but will save the department money as well.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the question. I'm not sure why the Member is getting so
upset. I know he's gone madly off in pursuit of problems and asking people to
provide pictures of problems in schools. I haven't seen any of those yet, Mr.
Speaker.
What I will say to the Member is we will make the
decision in the best interest of the children. I'm not going to rush to a
decision and regret it later. I'm not going to make a hasty decision and repent
at leisure. We will make the best decision for the children this school year and
it will be made very early in the new year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Mr.
Speaker, I do what all good leaders and people who have an interest and
experience in education, and seek out information, speak directly to people who
are affected by decisions.
Mr. Speaker, primary and elementary teachers are
struggling to bridge the grade-level gap from the amount of time lost last year;
thus, making formal first-term reports challenging to prepare.
Will the Minister of Education use his authority to
cancel formal term-one evaluations for primary and elementary students for this
school year and allow primary and elementary teachers to use their professional
judgment and to focus on outcomes and getting students where they need to be
academically?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will take that question under advisement. Again, even
with this topic, we will make a decision that is in the best interest of the
children. I do acknowledge that they've lost several months of school last year,
which is why we didn't make the hasty decision that the Member opposite was
demanding we make in having half of students go on Monday, the other half on
Tuesday and following the first half on Wednesday; having the children lose
another half a school year through that process.
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we didn't make that decision. We
will make that decision, if and when necessary, based on COVID in the schools.
We are not going to rush into hasty decisions at the Member's demand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John' Centre, time for a quick question and a quick
answer.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If we weren't trying to make hasty decisions on this
government side, we'd have none.
Formal first-term evaluations are coming up soon, when
will that decision be made because that will save teachers an enormous amount of
strain, worry and stress for their students and their families?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I'll take the question under advisement, the recommendation
by the Member under advisement. Mr. Speaker, I will speak with officials in the
department as well as with the English School District and we will make a
decision in the best interest of the students in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in
accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday, October 29, 2020.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whereas there is a growing urgency for brush cutting in
several communities in the District of Harbour Main, specifically Conception
Harbour and Roaches Line, Route 70. These roads are of high volume traffic,
significant moose sightings. They pose a serious threat to motorist. Brush
cutting maintenance on these roads must be carried out as soon as possible to
ensure the safety of the people that use them daily.
We petition the hon. House of Assembly to call upon and
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the
necessary steps of conducting and maintaining brush cutting operations on the
Conception Bay Highway, specifically Conception Harbour and Roaches Line, Route
70, to ensure motorists' safety and to improve the sightlines for the driving
public that use these roads each day.
Mr. Speaker, I have raised this petition two previous
times in the House of Assembly in my short time as a Member of the House, which
is approximately 16, 17 months. I rose in the House with a petition on this same
issue on December 5, 2019. I rose in the House of Assembly with this same
petition on June 15, 2020.
I am disappointed beyond belief to report that although
the former Minister of Transportation and Works gave assurances, at that time,
that this important issue would be addressed for the people in this district,
little has been done in all this time. In fact, the minister had previously
stated in response to my petition on behalf of the people that I'm going to
actually please the Member opposite, and that the work would actually be added
to the contract.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was December 5, 2019. December
16, 2019, I followed up with a letter to the minister. I asked for an expected
time frame and I am sad to say that little has been done.
Let me say what has been done. As far as the work in
Roaches Line, I've been advised by the residents there that only approximately
one kilometre was completed and they had to stop because of snowfall. As far as
Conception Harbour is concerned, no work at all was even started.
Now, given the safety concerns at play and the risk
involved, this is very concerning to the people in Conception Harbour, and not
only Conception Harbour and Roaches Line, but the people who pass through these
communities.
Mr. Speaker, we need to know, the people in these areas
need to know: Are these issues going to be addressed? Is the brush cutting going
to take place? We know that there was a concern with this issue as far as a
collision that had occurred in the Conception Bay area, specifically where the
brush cutting needs to take place. There was difficulty with the sightlines for
the driving public that use these roadways. Yet –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
– this seems to be funny, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of laughter –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
– but it's not funny to the people in this district.
It's a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. We're asking for a commitment. Once and for
all, can you address this issue for the people who are affected, in Conception
Harbour in particular?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for her
petition.
Anybody who drives this highway knows brush cutting is
the most important thing. Next to fixing a pothole, brush cutting is, I would
think, the next level to (inaudible).
I just sent a text over to my staff who assured me that
I will deliver on the promises made by the former minister. Your tender goes out
this week – so that everybody is hearing now, the tender for the Harbour Main
District will go out this week. I will provide you with the exact locations, but
this says we have the exact areas that the MHA wants. I can only tell you what
I'm being told. The Member should be very proud of that.
I know it's a long time coming. I understand the
frustration of anybody driving that road. I saw a moose accident a couple of
weeks ago in the middle of the day when there was no brush by the side of the
road, so I can imagine the frustration of driving where there's brush by the
side of the road.
I'm happy to report, the promise made will be a promise
kept from that minister to me, to you and your district. I will give you all the
details, because it's going to be emailed to me shortly, so you can report it
back. Another promise will be kept, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm presenting this petition for fair electricity rates
for Labrador Indigenous communities. I think it's my third or fourth time
presenting it.
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of
Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that fairer electricity
rates be provided to Torngat Mountains residents in the Northern Labrador
Indigenous communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and
Rigolet.
The rates charged to the Northern Labrador residents –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm having trouble hearing the Member. The noise level
in the House is too high.
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
The
rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are cost prohibitive using electric
heat and therefore rates are very cost prohibitive to adequately heating their
homes. The rationale for this particular petition is to bring electricity rates
more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake Melville region pay.
For the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountain
residents are charged the same rate as our neighbouring residents of Lake
Melville region. However, above that ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat
Mountains' residents pay six times the rate of Lake Melville residents – six
times the rate – jumping to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The 1,000-kilowatt hour
ceiling prevents many resident from being able to heat their homes with electric
heat. Low-income families and households that don't have the proper manpower to
haul wood are the greatest impacted.
Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating
expensive repairs for frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated
houses also create social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We
strongly believe that changes to electricity rates need to be made for the
Northern residents of Torngat Mountains.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the lifeline block to 3,500
kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy to electric
bills of Northern Labrador residents of the Torngat Mountains region.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is important because it
impacts the quality of life for residents in my district. That's why they signed
the petition and that's why I'm presenting it so much.
The first 1,000 kilowatt hours, we pay the same rate as
Lake Melville, but after that it jumps up to the highest in the province: 18.5
cents a kilowatt hours. We can't use electric heat to heat our homes. Actually,
we can't afford to. Even people – I'll take an example of people working in
Voisey's Bay, they make a good income; they can't afford electric heat.
What's the alternative? Going out and getting wood.
Long distances for people to drive and also gas. The price of gasoline on the
North Coast – highest in the province: $1.53 a litre with the price fees. Stove
oil is $100 more per drum in the winter than in the Lake Melville region.
I had a lot of stuff prepared, but one of the problems
I'm dealing with in my district is people will say: If it's so problematic, why
don't you move? I say: The thing about is we have problems because they're never
addressed. This would greatly go towards helping address some of our costs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
I
call Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 13.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government
House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, October 22, 2020.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion has been moved and seconded.
It is the pleasure of the House –
MR.
CROCKER:
October 27, sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
27th.
The motion has been moved and seconded.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Radiation, Health
and Safety Act, 2020, Bill 23, and I further move that the said bill be now read
a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded by the hon. minister that she shall introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To
Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation
And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing
Equipment And Associated Apparatus, Bill 23, and that the said bill now be read
a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and
Service Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The
Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The
Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated
Apparatus,” carried. (Bill 23)
CLERK (Hawley George):
A bill, An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health
Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In
Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical
Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus. (Bill 23)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence
Motion, report of the Government Services Committee.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.
The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
MS.
HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about the
work of the Government Services Committee.
As Chair of the Committee, it was a job made easy
because of the seriousness and the professionalism of the other Committee
Members. I want to say thank you to the Members of the Government Services
Committee who put in so much time with the staff of various departments over the
past few weeks as we went through Estimates of several departments and discussed
throughout relevant policies of the departments in question.
Estimates Committee work gives all Members the
opportunity to, not only meet staff of the various departments but also to learn
the important work of the departments in question. Those women and men are so
thoroughly versed in all aspects of work at their departments and their
involvement in the Estimates process ensure that we, as MHAs, have the answers
to our questions so we can make decisions in a very thoughtful manner, Mr.
Speaker.
The procedure allows for a clear understanding of what
is happening at the departmental level, so it's essential that all Members
participate at the Committee level. Mr. Speaker, I assure you, with the
Government Services Committee, we were all certainly engaged. There was
certainly no appetite for rushing through the process and many questions put
forward by the Committee Members were certainly answered thoroughly, Mr.
Speaker.
Those Members who served with me on the Government
Services Committee were: the Members for Ferryland; Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave; Lake Melville; Placentia - St. Mary's; the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse
aux Meadows; the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member for Terra
Nova; and, of course, I proudly represent the good people of Burin - Grand Bank.
The Estimates we were tasked with examining pertained
to: Finance; Consolidated Fund Services; the Public Service Commission;
Transportation and Infrastructure; Public Procurement Agency; and Digital
Government and Service NL. Certainly, a good cross-section of departments and
agencies and a cross-section that allowed Committee Members insight into their
workings, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say thank you to the staff of the various
departments who also put in a lot of preparation and time into instituting
government policy and taking measures to ensure the wise spending of the
taxpayers' money is carried out.
We realize there is a lot of work and hours in the time
during the run-up to the budget, often requiring time away from family. So we
thank the departmental staff for the sacrifice they make in ensuring this
province keeps moving forward. The budget is more than a document of numbers and
statistics; it is a blueprint for the direction of the province for the coming
fiscal year.
Thank you as well to the Table staff who are essential
to the smooth operation of the Estimates Committee. The degree of knowledge and
professionalism they demonstrate every single day is indeed commendable, Mr.
Speaker. I also want to send a shout-out to the people at Hansard who recorded
the Committee workings for posterity and public record. Some of our sessions
went late into the evening and they patiently listened and recorded the
proceedings while we learned of the direction government will be taking going
forward. They are indeed an important part of the democratic process.
Mr. Speaker, I will take some time in highlighting the
measures in the budget. It becomes obvious through the Estimates process that
besides the findings of how the money is spent on behalf of the taxpayers and
residents of this province, there are good things happening here in the
departments as we chart our future.
There is no denying that we are in very difficult times
as we are battling a global pandemic, while trying to keep our province moving
in the right direction; however, we cannot be held hostage by this pandemic. Mr.
Speaker, we will all adjust our ways of doing things to ensure we remain safe
while still getting on with business of running this province.
Transportation and Infrastructure is one department
where residents of the province are acutely aware of what is happening, and next
to Health and Community Services, I would say, Mr. Speaker, probably the most
visible. Everyone depends on our transportation system and it is not surprising,
of course, that this department does get a lot of attention.
This past year, work by the department has been
extensive and varied with everything from road and bridgework to work on
ensuring the safety of schoolchildren and residents within our province are kept
safe. I know the installation of digital speed signs were put in place in school
zones and new signage warnings of the dangers of distracted driving. A busy
department, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and not one solely fixated on the
transportation element.
The Infrastructure component is equally important as
that department oversees the building of new government facilities, such as
hospitals and schools, Mr. Speaker. I know in
Budget 2020 the Government Services Committee was informed that
government had budgeted $609 million towards provincial roads, as well as $80
million towards health care facilities. The investment in new health facilities,
whether the mental health facility in St. John's or the acute care hospital in
Corner Brook, is critical to people right across this province.
The Committee found that these are essential needs of
the residents of this province and will provide long-term benefits. I don't
think will be saddened when this new mental health facility is completed, which
will replace the present Waterford Hospital. This is a major, major step forward
for the province and another acknowledgement that mental health is as critical
as physical health to a person's well-being.
We have ongoing construction of new schools in Gander,
Paradise, Bay Roberts and St. Alban's. The new Francophone school in St. John's
area will be also a highlight, Mr. Speaker. It will be a proud day when the
doors of that facility will open.
Those new schools will allow children attending there
not just a new roof over their heads, Mr. Speaker, but modern facilities to
enrich the lives and educational experience of the children attending those
schools. No doubt, it will make the teaching experience more satisfying for
those tasked with working with our children. These investments in Education
being carried out by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are
essential for the well-being and ongoing education of our children, as well as
providing modern instructional facilities for our educators.
We were also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure took the time to pay respect to
several people who have made a significant contribution to society by renaming
bridges, especially after Innu Leaders in Labrador. We are a proud people and we
will always remember those who have given so much for the betterment of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am also pleased the contract has been let for the new
mental health unit in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. This will be a modern, six-bed
facility at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It will
feature private rooms for patients, as well as room for recreation and group
therapy. It is certainly appropriate that an Indigenous health team is busy
developing a plan for Indigenous land-based wellness programming. I understand
they are also involved in the design of the new unit, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
Trans-Labrador Highway. Not so long ago more than a dream but now nearing
completion. The final leg of that highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and
Southern Labrador will soon be paved, with the contract to do so already
awarded, Mr. Speaker. While that highway addresses basically an east-west
transportation link for the Big Land, government is also looking at the
possibility of a roadway to Northern Labrador; $200,000 has been set aside for a
feasibility study of such an undertaking of this project.
As I have already suggested, the work of this
department is multi-dimensional, with roads being just one piece of a large pie,
Mr. Speaker. The significance of the role of the department to the health and
educational services we require cannot be overstated. It's not just the
department, and the work of the employees there on behalf of the people of the
province is fundamental to the everyday lives of each and every single one of
us, Mr. Speaker. That became abundantly clear as we worked our way through the
Estimates for the department.
As an MHA for a rural district, working with various
ministers responsible for transportation has always been an important part of
the work I do on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the
beautiful District of Burin - Grand Bank. Given our climate, we will always have
to deal with maintaining and repairing our roadways, especially at a time where
climate change is impacting our coastal communities. As an MHA, I feel that I
have been able to accomplish a lot in the time I have been here, but some of the
most satisfying for me have been in the area of roadwork.
One of the first challenges with which I was presented
was the constant flooding of an area in the Lamaline area commonly known as the
Meadow, with flooding becoming more severe every single passing year, Mr.
Speaker. I worked with the then minister of Transportation and Works and had a
commitment within the first few weeks to have this work done and it was. It's
proving to be successful.
I also got a commitment from the minister at the time
to include the highway between Grand Bank and Fortune in the department's
five-year Roads Plan. At the time there was a very dangerous turn on that
section of road, Mr. Speaker, becoming more dangerous with each passing year as
the heavy seas ate away at the embankment by which the highway passed. I'm also
happy to say that work has been completed, Mr. Speaker, as has work on the
highway between St. Lawrence and Lawn, a section of road that had not seen
significant upgrades since being built. As well, stretches of the highway
between Marystown and Grand Bank have seen significant work and the situation
for the driving public has improved substantially.
There has been an acknowledgement by this government
that it recognizes the Burin Peninsula is in the midst of an economic rebirth,
Mr. Speaker. A good highway system is imperative in accommodating the needs of
the area as we go forward.
I say thank you to the previous minister of
Transportation and Works for the installation of a new highway camera near
Terrenceville. Though not technically in my district, nonetheless it is a
valuable tool for everyone travelling the Burin Peninsula, especially during the
winter months. I have heard many, many positive comments from residents of my
district since it's been installed, Mr. Speaker.
Has all the necessary roadwork been completed in the
District of Burin - Grand Bank? Of course not. There are still projects that
need to be undertaken. While I am the MHA for that district, I will continue to
strongly advocate for its completion. That said, I want to thank the ministers
with whom I have worked to have the aforementioned projects carried out. It
certainly has positively impacted the residents and the constituents I
represent, Mr. Speaker.
Among the highlights of the Department of Digital
Government and Service NL, Mr. Speaker, government was asked to step up and make
services more readily accessible to the residents of the province. We have made
enormous strides in bringing government closer to those who use those same
services in attempting to overcome the challenges of distance and availability
of services.
Technology can be a great equalizer of the gap between
rural and urban areas, especially as more reliable and faster Internet services
become more readily available in rural areas. That said, the continued expansion
of quality Internet will be something with which government will continue to
work with service providers until province-wide coverage has been given. This
will become increasingly important as more and more government services are
provided online, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee learned through
Budget 2020 that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic,
registration through MyGovNL has grown by a significant percentage – some 1,400
per cent, in fact, Mr. Speaker.
The formation of the Department of Digital Government
and Service NL has already made huge advances on the technology side, and I'm
sure there's still much more to come. This fact ensures residents of the
province have fingertip access that could only have been dreamed about some
short 15 years ago, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we have done it right here should
also reflect on the skill set we have developed in this province. We are
embracing our technology sector, and this should serve as an incentive for those
interested in that particular field. We can do it right here, and the Committee
learned the focus will also be put there going forward. A renewed focus on
technology and our role in it.
Mr. Speaker, not only has the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL made advances within her department, but she's here in
the House with her son, Alexander. One of the highlights of our time in the
House this year is certainly the little reminder of who we work with just a
couple of seats over from me.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance Estimates were
interesting, as we learned of the changes made to enhance governance such as
changes to the Treasury Board and Finance. Government has given a clear
definition to Treasury and Finance. I thank the Finance Minister for the
experience of learning of these changes.
It has to be challenging work in the department – very
challenging, Mr. Speaker – especially during the pandemic and the resulting
downturn in the economy worldwide, but I believe we still have a bright future
ahead – a very bright future. We are by nature a resilient people, and I have
every confidence that resilience will get us through this period as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House for this
opportunity to bring forward these observations which relate to the work of the
Government Services Committee. Having the opportunity to examine this work of
the various departments and agencies under our scope of reference was certainly
enlightening.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I'd like to speak on behalf of my
district, just to say thank you to all the people who put me here and
representing the beautiful District of Ferryland. Since I came in here 17 or 18
months ago, I'm going to say it's a pleasure to be involved with government
Service NL.
Since I came in here, I've been through three
ministers. I'm sure the ministers on the other side looking at this department –
so many bills since I came in. It is unbelievable how many bills are in this
department, and I'm sure all three ministers in that department are saying it's
a lot of work. I certainly appreciate the time they put into it. I appreciate
that.
I served as a critic for this department, like I said,
17 months ago. The department is no longer called workplace health and safety.
It's now called Digital Government and Service NL. It's even had a name change
and three ministers since I got in here. I don't know if I'm the problem but
it's certainly changed.
Even with those responsibilities, the department
delivers a wide variety of services. When I first came in, my colleague to the
left of me here said when you come in this department you get a birth
certificate and you leave with a death certificate. That's what the department
covers, so I thought it was a pretty wide variety of things it covers. I'll go
down through some of the stuff in some of the departments, just some of the
stuff it covers. In my short time here I learned, as the expression goes,
everything from a needle to an anchor that you're getting permission to or get
to speak on. There's so much legislation to deal with it all, it's incredible.
In that department in Service NL, or Digital Government
– I'm going to keep saying Service NL, I'm sure I am because it's been 17 months
at it so it's going to be hard to get away from it. It includes Motor
Registration; it includes highway safety. Just to touch on highway safety; I've
asked some questions today on highway safety as well but one of the things that
I did speak on long ago, and I thought when I brought it up it raised a few
eyebrows over there, nothing bad, but just something that I think we could look
at going in the future.
When I was in Portugal, probably a year ago now – it
seems a long while ago – driving through a street, no schools, no intersection.
You drive through a street and a light comes on, it stops you right where you
are. We were three or four days there and every time we'd drive through a light
would come on and go red. We're looking around saying, what is going on? I think
it's something we could put in our school zones.
An example would be in my district in the Goulds where
there's an elementary school. You're driving down a nice little street and the
speed sort of gets up. The speed is 30 kilometres there, and it's pretty easy –
and we've all done that – going through communities that you drive around
Newfoundland, and you're driving around – you're going through a community and
the next thing you're going 50 or 60 kilometres and the zone is 30.
In this instance, when I was in Portugal, the light
would come on. Anytime you went 10 kilometres over the speed limit, a light
would flash on and stop everything. You see a red light; you stop. Stop for 10
seconds, the light changes and goes green. There's nothing there, other than
stopping anyone that's going fast. I thought it would be a great idea for a
school zone, just to keep the people and the kids safe and all the traffic that
goes through these zones.
I'm thinking here in the city itself that some of these
streets where people are in a hurry and sometimes I worry about that. They're
always in a hurry going somewhere, but when you're going through a school zone
you have to be careful. I think if you had something like that, and I'm not sure
what the cost is on it but if you had something there that if you went 10
kilometres over the speed limit, a light flashed on, you stopped for 10 seconds
and away you go again. I just think it would be something that would be great in
school zones. I think it's something the government should look at. I remember
the minister the last time I brought this up, he looked at me and he was nodding
his head. I just think that maybe – again, I don't know the cost but it may be
something you can look at.
Also in my area, in the school zones and in the
community I live in, we have some speed zones. I did call our council in one of
the communities I was in. You're driving in the community, the speed limit is
50, and in the nighttime you can really see it. You're driving, you're coming
down the highway on a little stretch and you're going 70 kilometres an hour. The
light flashes on, there's like a cop car there and you really slow down. You're
really conscious of it. I think it's really important that you look at that.
Now, it's expensive for the communities. It cost $7,000
or $8,000, but it's safety and that's something they put there out of their own
coffers, I'm going to say, in their community, but I thought it was a great
idea.
I know that the department did put it in the school
zones from the government. They did put it in a school zone where we are. Again,
you come a hill, you go down over the hill, no problem to go 70. We have
residents that complain about it, and rightly so, because you're coming to a
school zone. There are some kids that have some disabilities in the area as
well. It really brings you to a good slowdown, I have to say, with that flashing
light, for sure.
I think it's a great initiative and the government
should probably look at that, especially in school zones. It's from here,
Newfoundland and Labrador, all over, wherever they can be. I'm sure some places
probably don't need it, but I think in some of these school zones, and I know
that a lot of Members – I'm just looking around at them – knowing where some of
the school are that I'm familiar with, they could certainly use them in their
area.
Another few divisions that are in there. There's
Occupational Health and Safety, Vital Statistics, lotteries, residential
tenancies, the registries of deeds and companies, consumer and financial
affairs, the real estate and mortgage broker regulation. We went through that
last year in detail and questioned some of the stuff. The legislation in some of
this stuff is so outdated that it needed to be tweaked and needed to be looked
at.
I thought we did some good work on that and didn't let
it pass through just be sailing it through. We had some questions, what both
sides thought on it. We did some good work on it, myself on this side and the
Member for CBS. Also, the Queen's Printer and many more are also included in it.
The department is responsible for 175 pieces of
legislation. I can tell you from experience, this means the critics get a lot of
inquiries and also have a fair number of bills to address in the Legislature. I
have a bill coming up tomorrow that's on radiation equipment. I had one on
credit unions last week that the Member for Cape St. Francis filled in for me.
Just to touch on that, I wasn't here last week to do Estimates, I was sick and
the Member for Cape St. Francis filled in. I certainly appreciate him doing
that. Thank you very much.
I'm sure that the minister over there, after a couple
of months, certainly recognizes how important and how busy it is in just only
two months. Looking at the legislation, I'm sure it's pretty tough for her.
I also have a variety of topics covered by the
department that makes my job as critic very interesting and it means you're
learning so much about the department. You're learning so much about highways
and, I'm going to say, motor vehicle.
I came from a motor vehicle salesperson, I guess. Well,
I started as a service consultant in a car dealership and then I went on to be a
sales consultant. If anyone ever aspires to be a sales consultant, I think they
should learn and live in the service department first, because once you take
care of a customer and you take care of them in service, picking up their
vehicles, dropping it off and getting the required work done, you have a
customer for a lifetime, if you take care of them, and that's what it's all
about.
That's what government does. Government provides
services and if you can treat the people the way they're supposed to be treated,
obviously you got them for a lifetime. If you can treat them the way they should
be treated, then we try to stay clear of getting stuff in the gutter. We try to
treat people with the utmost respect. That's what we need on our front lines.
If you ever work on a front line and serving customers
– so you have people that are in motor vehicle – and it's like I said, it's such
a wide variety. I'm trying to sit here and think of all the departments where
you go in and you actually meet people that – it's a tough job.
Dealing with the public is a tough job. They got stuff
on their mind when they're coming in: their families, their car payments, their
mortgages and everything else that goes with it – daycare and their kids in
school and doctor appointments. The person on the front line that you get
greeted by is the most important for you to start your day off right. When you
go to some of these car dealerships, it's not only the one I worked at, if you
go there you really understand that dealing with the public is a pretty tough
job. I think it's the second highest, if I'm not mistaken, stressful job out
there, besides air traffic controllers.
If you ever go into a car dealership you have to keep
them in your mind. I mean, I got the advantage, I worked there, so I can go in
there and give them a hard time and move on. But when you go in there, you have
to remember, it's a stressful job. They got to try to get the vehicles in, they
got to try to get them ready, try to get them out and then they got to ask to
get them paid for, which every time somebody brings in a vehicle, most times you
never want to pay for anything other than your maintenance. There's stuff that
got to be charged and they got the unenviable task of having to ask you for
money. That's not easy, so I sort of pity them in that way.
Also, just some other things in my district I wanted to
touch on, one was a rotational worker that I got an email from and it just hits
home a little bit, I guess. We all got this issue. Every single person in this
Legislature got this issue for sure.
He writes me an email and, obviously, I'm not going to
use his name, he said: I'm writing this letter to explain my situation to see if
anyone can do something. I'm a rotational worker; I work in Malaysia on an oil
rig. Since the pandemic came in, I've seen my family for seven days. As an
example, he left home on May 11.He did three weeks in quarantine in Malaysia
before going to the rig where he did another five weeks or more, until he got
home in July, and did two more weeks quarantine when he got home. He spent seven
days with his family before he had to travel back to Malaysia to quarantine and
start all over again.
I know the rules are there for a reason and we respect
that, but sometimes you have to look at it. These families, along with all – I'm
sure they're glad they have a job at this point in time, but you really do have
to put into consideration their marriages and how all that affects the family
and they get to see them. They come home and they can only look at them through
a window for 14 days and in seven days time they're gone back. It's pretty
tough.
I know that Dr. Fitzgerald has a job to do. It's a
tough rule, but I think that we can – I listened to the gentleman this morning
on the radio talking about rotational workers. If they could have rapid testing
and do five to seven days, well, that gives them some extra time that they're
not getting right now. You sort of have to look at that, and we as people in
here have to put ourselves in their shoes and what they're going through.
Sometimes we take calls but we neglect to do that and think about that. That's
one of the ones that I wanted to bring up.
Just speaking on the locked-in pensions, which was
another question that I had yesterday and spoke on it before, I don't want to
belabour the point but these people are in dire straits. Their cars could be
repossessed and lose their house.
I know that the rule says that in dying circumstances
or you're nearing death, but nearing death is no good when everything is gone.
They need it now and we have to respect that, I think, as MHAs here. I think
that the government side really should push through that legislation and try to
get it ready, and government officials get it ready so that we can act upon it,
and hopefully help these people out and get them through some struggling times
because they are going through struggling times.
Some other stuff that I'd like to touch on, another one
would be – and I heard the minister speaking over there so I'll touch on a
couple of them as well. She mentioned bridges. In an area where I am, I have a
bridge, Mutton Bay Bridge in Trepassey. I know it's on the list; it looks like
it's going to be done.
If you haven't seen it – hopefully you don't ever cross
it because it's a bridge that's in desperate need. It really needs to be done.
I'm glad to see that they're onside to get it done. The previous MHA before me,
I'm sure, was advocating for that. The people of the area in Trepassey certainly
need it. Again, I'm getting a lot of calls this week on the conditions of the
road in the area as well, so we need to pay attention.
There's a letter here. It says: I'm sending you this
note to complain and question about the condition of the main roads on each side
of Trepassey, especially the barrens from Trepassey to Peter's River.
I had a discussion with another MHA across the House
yesterday on it, and we argued over who's responsible for it and who gets the
blame, I guess, if it's not done. She said: We're retired, so we travel to St.
John's on a weekly basis for doctor's appointments. Many people have done damage
to their vehicles travelling the roads. I personally watched the highway crews
come and patch 10 bad holes and leave three or four behind.
It's not easy, and I see another minister over there
nodding his head. We've seen it happen. Sometimes they run out of asphalt or for
some other reason they can't go, or they don't have enough people to stay there
or whatever the case, but we have to pay attention to this stuff. If we do the
small things like that, that will make our jobs much easier and that stuff will
go away.
I'm sure something else is going to come up, but we
really have to take care of the people. If they call you, you call them back and
say we'll see what we can do. If we can get that done, then that goes off your
radar and you move on to your next issue. Hopefully, there is none, but I know
there will always be something, but you move on and get it done.
We just let it dwindle and go and go and don't get any
answers, and then we have irate people. You have to deal with it; I have to deal
with it. Sometimes I think some of these problems can be done and handled. I
know it's not easy. You have departments and equipment and there are big areas
to cover, but I'm thinking if you get the little problems out of the way, you
can deal with the big ones. That's the way I look at it. If you can get rid of
some of these small problems, then you can move on to some other stuff. That's
where I'll leave with that.
When you did your Estimates, Digital Government and
Service NL – with the Committee itself, there's Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Public Procurement Agency, Finance, the Public Service
Commission and also Consolidated Fund Services. These are all the ones under
Government Services. It's a big area for sure. I listened yesterday for six
hours on all the other concurrence. There are a lot of issues for sure. We'd
certainly like to get some of these problems – like I say, I'd like to get them
put to bed so we can move on to some bigger things.
One other thing before I finish. All of us, I'm sure,
do it; but I'd like to put it on the record to thank my CA who keeps me out of
trouble. That's a big job, I'm sure. She does a great job answering people back
and taking care of everything that needs to be done. I'd certainly like to thank
her for that.
That's it. Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just enjoyed listening to the Member for Ferryland.
He was quite interesting. Actually, as I was listening to him, he gave me
several things of which to talk about today. One I love, Mr. Speaker, every time
I have an opportunity to speak about my district, but I always do also have a
habit of quickly running out of time.
Sometimes my colleagues say it's hard to fill 20
minutes. I go back to the early years when I started here in 2013. I remember
one day sitting over there and I said, at that time, to MHA Jim Bennett: Time
goes some fast when you're up. We would stand then. It was pre-COVID. He said:
No, 20 minutes goes fast when you're wound up and you're always wound up.
Perhaps I was back in those days when I think about my
district, and I reflect on it all the time on my drive. When I fly in to Blanc
Sablon, most folks who have a rural district, it requires hundreds of kilometres
to get from one end to the other. We do spend a lot of time on the road alone,
Mr. Speaker, as you would know, serving our constituents.
Often, when I cross over into L'Anse au Clair and I'm
heading north to my hometown in Charlottetown, I'm quite fully preoccupied with
the different drive that I take now than the drive that I used to take in these
early years. I would stand in Opposition and I would hammer out the petitions.
I'd come back on Mondays after being in my district in the Labrador Straits
driving through terrible road conditions, almost 40-year-old pavement.
Then I would leave Red Bay and in the fall and in the
spring, which ironically was when the House was sitting, that was when the road
would be the worst. I would be on gravel road. It was absolutely terrible. I
would fly in to my district, Mr. Speaker, and it wasn't uncommon to be
surrounded by people protesting, maybe 150 people – I have those memories –
because they were fed up.
Now, when I go, thanks to the progress, thanks to the
investments of this government, the picture is a very, very different one. We
have so much to be thankful for. We've made tremendous progress. We're not where
we need to be yet; we're going to continue to build on that.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we go out and we make an
announcement, we're going to put cell coverage in six communities. There will
always be a community that says what about us. I share a quote that my
grandmother often said: Never let perfect be the enemy of the good. We have to
start somewhere and we build on that. That's what we've been doing.
Mr. Speaker, I've said it here before, I never aspired
to be where I was – never. I moved back. I was just moved away long enough to do
some post-secondary. I moved home, started a young family and lived in a little
community. I didn't really have the luxury to say: I wonder when someone's going
to put a playground up there for the children. So you got involved. My husband
got involved in recreation. I got involved in municipal and literacy. We look
back now and we could almost say the rest is history.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I guess 14 years sitting as a
community rep on the school council, day after day, year after year lobbying for
a new school for the community. Then, the whole ceiling caved in while I was at
a Combined Councils meetings, actually, in Goose Bay. A bunch of people reached
out; we started a real intense lobby that spring for a new school. Shortly after
that, an opportunity opened up in a by-election and here I am.
One of the things I always say is the only thing
constant around me has been change. I think about the all-male team that I
joined in 2013, the different players around me that were always changing; when
I think about the different views that I have as an MHA in this Legislature.
I had the opportunity to serve for a couple of years in
Opposition. I remember a Member of government on my first or second day that I
was in the House said, you're very, very fortunate as an MHA to get the
privilege to serve in Opposition. I thought that was kind of a funny comment at
the time. I understand now what he meant. It gave me some time to learn, to get
established. Later, we would form government. I would share a view that you're
sharing today, Mr. Speaker. I would get to be, to date – depending now, my
colleague from I want to say –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Harbour Grace.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Harbour Grace, thank you.
Depending how long she serves, to date I am only the
second female Deputy Speaker and the longest serving. Once she gets 20 months,
then she will surpass me. I had that view. Then, in 2017 I was afforded the
privilege to sit at the Cabinet table and now I have that view. There's lots of
experience.
When I look back to the Opposition days and the
Estimates process, I think the first time our chief of staff said you have to
get ready for Estimates, I was wondering what that was. Later, I would now be a
minister in a department and bring in my officials and we would go through the
Estimates process. Very, very important, Mr. Speaker.
No matter who the government is, sometimes government
will say to Opposition or Opposition will accuse government of looking back: Why
are you looking back? It's important that we look back, just to have some
learnings, Mr. Speaker, from the past. There's no doubt about it, there's a
reason why our windshield is bigger than our rear-view mirror. We are moving
forward and the main focus is on moving forward, but we have to glance back and
we have to learn.
I represent a beautiful part of this province,
Labrador, a big, vast land. It's a tremendous privilege to be the minister for
Labrador. I sometimes feel the weight of responsibility that comes with that,
but also there's an excitement and there's an energy around the tremendous,
untapped potential that's in Labrador.
Just yesterday morning, myself and the Premier, the
Premier did a keynote address to Expo Labrador and I had the opportunity to join
him in Q & A. I have to give a shout out to the Labrador North Chamber of
Commerce who've been doing phenomenal work around bringing businesses together,
whether within this province or across the country, with showcasing what
Labrador has to offer, showcasing the business opportunities at events like
Expo, at events like Northern Exposure.
This year times are very different, as we hear almost
on a daily basis, so kudos to them. They have taken their conference online, and
we had an opportunity to participate virtually, Mr. Speaker. Also, the Premier
in his address had the opportunity to share some of the ways that Labrador is
benefiting from our government's commitment to grow the economy in areas like
tourism, agriculture, forestry; lots of good things happening. The big one being
mining, Mr. Speaker.
There are lots of questions in this House around
offshore. We're a heavy, resource-based, offshore-dependent province, and
COVID-19 have changed the absolute world. It's changed things globally.
When we look to mining, I'm very proud to live in an
area where mining contributes so much to the GDP of this province, to the
provincial Treasury, to people that work, not just in Labrador but, Mr. Speaker,
every weekend when I'm on a plane coming from Goose Bay, like this past weekend,
and lots of workers getting off the plane in Deer Lake; lots of workers getting
off the plane in St. John's. We're going to continue to build on that.
One of the questions yesterday was what's our plan? I
went back to July '19 when I had the privilege to be in Labrador City and
participate in – I believe the investment was around $6 million for an
industrial line that was for Tata. We now see Tata, their plant is fully
operational, fully commissioned, 300 jobs, 150 contractors; 450 jobs, Mr.
Speaker. IOC, I just sat down with the chamber there a few weeks ago and I think
they told me they hired 150 new jobs during COVID. So there are things to be
optimistic about.
I had started down this road with a focus to talk about
my district. When I take that drive – and you know how different it is from what
it used to be. I would stand up in this House – Clyde Jackman used to sit where
the Deputy Premier is sitting now, sometimes he would shake his head when I
would talk about leaving my home town to head back to the House. My husband
would say stick to the high roads when you're driving to Goose Bay. Folks here
might not have known what he meant, but I was trenching through such terrible
conditions, that's what you had to do. It was mucky and when it froze, you had
to stick to the high roads.
Mr. Speaker, what we see now with investments from this
government since 2017, 300 kilometres of new pavement; 100 kilometres in just
2019. We saw 56 kilometres on the Goose Bay end with Johnson's – fell just a
little shy of the 80k for this year. They have assured me that they will be back
and they expect to get about 100 kilometres done next season, modestly speaking.
They have 150 to do, and perhaps they will do more than the 100.
Mr. Speaker, we were in L'Anse au Clair last week, last
Saturday, I believe. We had a wonderful day there celebrating the grand opening
of a beautiful community centre that that community will get lots of work from;
a new fire truck that was parked beside that.
The first principle of economics really – I haven't
really studied economics, just a little – is that money should be allocated
based on need. I represent a district where that was not always the case, Mr.
Speaker. Prior to the Liberal Party forming government in 2013, we had 12 years
of what I would say in the wilderness, at a time when this province was very,
very rich and wealthy. We had all of these issues. Now, I can leave and drive
through community after community. I can see new community centres going up, I
see new fire trucks. Not luxuries, things that were needed.
Just this past Friday, I had the opportunity to join
some Nalcor folks from the Fire & Security Division in Churchill Falls. We flew
in to Black Tickle and we donated to Black Tickle an emergency water pump, a
250-gallon-a-minute water pump, and 400 feet of hose. I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, it's heartwarming to listen to an individual from that community on the
radio this morning say they last a house to a fire there in February. They just
had to stand and helplessly watch as that home burned. There was a family pet
that lost their life in that fire and, fortunately, the individuals got out.
They're very thankful that this small donation was able to be made to the
community.
Sometimes when government is in the very difficult
fiscal situation that they're in right now, it doesn't always mean that we have
the funds or we have to go to departments and look. Sometimes we're able to
achieve the goals and helping communities meet what their needs are by
partnership. That's what happened on Saturday.
Also, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to sit
down with Dr. Ashlee Cunsolo. She is the director right now of the School of
Arctic and Sub-Arctic Studies; wonderful amazing things happening there around
higher learning.
She shared many stories of individuals that may have
felt that they attempted post-secondary and that they failed, and the assurance
that we need to give them that you did not fail, but a system failed you. Now,
discussions are happening around if the Innu wants a social work program; why
can't that happen right there in Labrador in Happy Valley. If the Innu want
another nursing program; why can't that happen right there in Happy Valley.
A lot of things to be excited about as we see this
academic unit that is right now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is a vision
working with many partners that the academic unit will transfer to a Labrador
college and that there will be synergies across with other campuses in the North
looking to Yukon and looking to Nunavut. So lots of exciting things happening
there, Madam Speaker.
The Member for Ferryland was talking about his time as
a salesperson and the importance of keeping your customers happy. That's not
really unlike what we do, Madam Speaker. As MHAs, we work for our constituents.
Right now, my fill-in CA is currently working in my office; I have a new lady.
She said to me when I was in the district last week: I had no idea that your
office was such a busy office. I had no idea so many people reached out.
Yes, Madam Speaker, I know that your office is a very,
very busy district office as well. I talked earlier here about the changes that
I've seen around me over the last 7½ years. That's why it's essential that all
of us as MHAs, that our first loyalty be to our district. They are the people
that hire us. It's not exactly fun often on election night waiting to see if a
few thousand people that gave you the job interview is going to hire you, but
some of us have been through it a number of times and we must not forget the
people that put us here. One of my former colleagues, Sammy Slade, often would
refer to this place as the people's House. That is true. It's the people's
House; it is the people's purse.
I want to give a shout-out to Aggie Cabot who is right
now working in my constituency office, while my long time, who's been at my side
since day one, Michelle Normore-Ryland is taking a well-deserved break. She's
off with her grandchild somewhere on the Island. It's a very busy office.
Madam Speaker, when you're a rural MHA, and some of my
other colleagues in this House will appreciate this, when you don't have
government services in these communities, when you don't have cell coverage in
all the communities, when you have transportation issues, when you're dealing
with helicopters, planes and ferries, folks will always be reaching out to you.
I often say to people, if I see a busy person, I say: Take care for yourself.
Someone the other day said, what are you saying? Like, take your advice because
you're not using it. Well, perhaps, Madam Speaker, I could find a better
balance.
One of the things that's important to me and that I
pride myself on is I always try and be available to my constituents. Many folks
will know that if they're calling me 11 o'clock on Saturday night, I'm answering
the phone; if they're calling me 7 o'clock on Sunday morning, I'm answering the
phone. I'm not telling people in this House to do that, but that's pretty much
how I have operated. It's a busy district but we've made progress by working
together. We're going to continue to do that, Madam Speaker.
I want to give a shout-out to the leadership in the
communities that I serve. I went home on the 15th of March for a couple of days
on a Sunday with a piece of carry-on luggage, and I wasn't back here until some
time in May when the House resumed. During this time in Labrador, a small
population spread over a large landmass, no ICU beds. We have ventilators and
things there now, Madam Speaker, but there was a lot of uncertainty in this
community.
To put it into perspective, Madam Speaker, it's easy
for people to say: Oh, just follow the Public Health measures. Why are they so
worried? But when you visit places like I have in North River near Cartwright
and you walk through a cemetery and you see as many as five family names on one
tombstone, you realize that's what the Spanish flu did to Labrador years ago
when you see a husband and a wife and a son and a daughter all died within short
time frames. Those elderly people that we represent, that we serve, there was a
reason why they were concerned about this virus. As they tuned into briefings
each day they would hear there are many things we don't know about this virus.
We're still learning. They were concerned.
Communication is paramount. Whatever you're going
through in life it's absolutely essential, from relationships in the home to
with your colleagues, to community. I want to commend the leadership, because
right out of the gate in March we held weekly calls with the leadership in the
community. There was a call on Saturday mornings that took place with the former
minister responsible for Labrador Affairs, and on Tuesdays the four Labrador
MHAs and the MP. The leadership in the communities, the mayors, the AngajukKâk,
we got on a call. They raised their concerns and we did our best, Madam Speaker,
to address them. That is how we got through this.
Madam Speaker, that brings me back in my closing
moments to Budget 2020 that my
colleague, the Deputy Premier brought in to the House:
Today. Tomorrow. Together. As we find ourselves in this really
unprecedented time, every day there's discussion in this House about individuals
that have lost jobs due to plummeting oil prices. We hear too often about mental
health concerns.
Like our current Premier of the day often says, Madam
Speaker, there's no us and them, there is we. We are in this together. We are a
small province of 526,000 people and I believe that the people don't want
politics at this time. They want us to work together. They want to know that our
focus is on keeping them safe.
I want to thank the Deputy Premier for bringing down a
great budget. She closed the budget with a quote: “We cannot change the past but
we can shape the bright future that our province and its people deserve.”
I just want to close on a note of optimism. The Premier
talked about his storied journey to get where he is. In many ways he feels like
he's just at the base camp of the mountain and there's a mountain ahead of us,
but, Madam Speaker, we're going to go up that mountain together. The encouraging
thing is we're going to come down the other side and we're going to be all right
because we're resilient people here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are many
things still to be hopeful about.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (P. Parsons):
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'll just rise again and have a few words on this.
First of all, I want to – something that happened, I got a letter today from the
Speaker. I appealed a decision on an expense account for $185 and it got
approved today.
I just want to explain to people that it was for the
Special Olympians in Corner Brook who had an event – they couldn't have the
event because they couldn't stop the Special Olympians from clapping and hugging
and things like that. What they did, they decided to go door to door. They asked
me to go along with them, and I did. It was refused, and on principle I appealed
that decision and the decision was done today. So I will be making a donation to
the Special Olympics of $185. It wasn't on the money, it was on the principle;
thinking I was going to buy
votes with Special Olympics and knowing very well.
The Members that voted for it and understood it, thank you very much for that
because it is standing up for it.
One of the Members stated a bit of advice that I should
check. Just to let that Member know that the products were bought. They were
planning on having a little function but because of the restrictions they
couldn't have it. They decided not to have their function. So I just wanted to
put that on the record. I want to thank the Members who supported it. I spoke to
the Leader of the Third Party and explained it, and she's very supportive of
that now.
That was on principle for Special Olympians. I spoke to
the president very much and he was very upset that people didn't understand
that. So I just want to say that was done. When you stand on principle, which I
have, Madam Speaker, on that, I will continue to do so for the underprivileged
and I make no apologies whatsoever for it.
I'm going to speak on the Government Services part,
Madam Speaker. I just spoke on Service NL, and I know the Member for Ferryland
was bringing this up on a regular basis about the LIRA fund. I'm going back
probably two or three years now when I was doing some work on it also to have
that loosened up for a lot of people in dire circumstances. There has been a lot
of work done on it. There has been a lot of work done on it, I can assure you
that. I got moved out of Service NL back to Municipal Affairs and Environment at
the time. I was doing both then, but just took over that. So it was very close.
There were some of the unions that were saying, no, no
we want to ensure that the fund is there for when they retire. Also, who I was
dealing with a lot were some of the retirees from the City of Corner Brook. Just
to give an example, when they had $200,000 or $300,000 in their pension fund and
for some reason it was done well before – the maximum they could take out of
their pension fund, I'm going on memory, is 6 per cent a year, period. They even
asked to increase it to 13 per cent, so at least they can – if you take out 6
per cent of $220,000, Madam Speaker, and if you get 4 or 5 per cent interest on
it, you'll never use the fund.
A lot of people that transferred funds out work with
the government. It's their money. The LIRA fund is actually what the people who
are working paid into the fund. This is coming from the City of Corner Brook
workers and people and government employees. I agree with the Member for
Ferryland, who's been very strong on this, that it's the people's own money.
This idea that it may crash because of the pension fund; part of this LIRA fund,
it's very little of this government pension plan; very little, Madam Speaker. I
just hope that will be looked at and that, hopefully, we can get that done.
The only way right now that you can tap into the LIRA
fund is – I hate to say this – you have to show someway that you have a terminal
disease or that you passed away. That's the only way to tap into your own money
that you have.
Again, for the people that are going through these
tough times right now, I just agree with the Member for Ferryland and the
government. I'm confident that the government Members are also receiving calls
on it and that we can work together to expedite this here in this House because
that is what we're here for, to try to help the people in times of need. This is
one of the times of need that we can definitely put that through, Mr. Speaker –
Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. I'll get it.
It's a time of need and this is a great time for all of
us that we can definitely help out with the people in need through this
pandemic. We trust that the government will work on this. I'm sure you're going
to have unanimous consent in this House to help this through. I'll be one
supporting it because I've been working with that. Even after I left Service NL,
I've been writing and trying to get it done. I know a lot of employees of the
City of Corner Brook and others have that major concern and major issue.
I'll just give people a good example: You're working
with the City of Corner Brook; you're retired; you want to do your roof. You
can't get enough money out of the LIRA fund to do your roof, to do renovations
to your house. It's your money. It's your money. It's what you paid in to the
fund. I'm hoping to get that done very soon. I support the government on doing
that.
I mentioned earlier Transportation and Infrastructure,
and I know I mentioned it earlier in a speech, I say to the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure that he has a huge department, whichever
minister goes into that department, it's a huge, huge department. I don't know
what the logic is or the rationale.
Whoever took the infrastructure from municipal affairs
and put it in to make that department larger, I just don't feel – and it's just
my opinion on dealing with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and dealing
with a lot of rural districts and a lot of rural communities. They understand
how much that department should have stayed with Environment, Climate Change and
Municipalities now.
The Infrastructure division, I feel, is a bit of a
downgrade to the department and to the municipalities. It's not that the
minister is not from a rural district and it's not that he can't do the job, but
it's just the department is so big, a lot of the municipal affairs issues are in
that Climate Change Department right now.
I just feel, before it's too late, I think they should
look at it and bring it back, because right now if you're going to put an
application in for a capital works or Canada build fund, it has to go to the
Department of Climate Change, Mr. Speaker. They have to do an assessment, send
it over to municipal affairs, get it approved and send it back to see if they
can come up with their share of the funding to do the evaluation. The other
thing about it is – and this is nothing on the minister, because no matter who
is in that department, I know the former minister the same thing, they put the
extra work on them.
What would take a priority? I'll just ask this, throw
this out because a lot of us have rural districts. What would take a priority?
Would a small infrastructure project in Ming's Bight take a priority over a main
road in St. John's or Corner Brook?
MADAM SPEAKER:
I
remind the Member to direct his comments to the Chair, please.
MR.
JOYCE:
Pardon me?
MADAM SPEAKER:
I
remind the Member to direct his comments to the Chair, please.
MR.
JOYCE:
I
thought I was, sorry.
I'm just saying Ming's Bight and I could use Lark
Harbour and York Harbour, any different town or community in the area, the
priority list would go down because the major infrastructure is what would take
it. Again, it's in no way in the world any reflection on any minister in either
department, because I think both of them work hard at it and they will do a
great job at it, but I just have to bring that up. If someone could explain the
rationale.
I know three or four years ago that was tried and we
put a stop to it because that's who is going to suffer, is the smaller towns
across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The ones, for example, that
would need an engineer to come down and have a look at something. Now, what's
going to take the priority?
That's just my opinion from dealing with it. That's my
opinion speaking to the smaller towns. Now, for a small town, you have to deal
with three different departments right now – three different departments. So if
you have infrastructure, you deal with Transportation and Infrastructure. If you
have firefighting equipment or a fire truck, now you deal with the Department of
Justice. Then if you have some other issues with a municipality, you deal with
it with a third department.
So if you want to talk about issues for smaller towns;
that is one. I just ask if someone can explain the rationale or someone can
explain to me why that's done. I would definitely look for the rationale to help
out on that, to satisfy my own mind.
Madam Speaker, I also know the Department of Finance is
part of this Government Services. Again, I understand the role that the minister
has and the government has and the difficulties that they do have. So we're all
faced with it, and I see the Opposition again, they're doing their job today
asking on certain aspects of the economy and then government has to come up with
an answer: What are you going to do with the funds? Then when the critic for
Finance is asking the government: How are you going to get it under control?
This is normal. Just to let people know, this is normal. When I was in
Opposition, we were asking questions on finances. The critic for Finance would
stand up and say: Well, how are you going to manage all this? So this is normal.
This is how Opposition works and I understand it. I
understand it totally, that's how government works. I understand it totally. We
as legislators have to try and find a balance. We have to try to find a balance
on this here with the finances, because we can't keep kicking it down the road.
If we keep kicking it down the road, we're not going to get it solved. There's
just no way in the world to get it solved.
Again, there are a lot of people around here that have
been around, a lot of people who've been involved with finances outside, before
they got in the Legislature, and they can definitely help out. They can
definitely add some input to all this.
I'll go back to the District of Humber - Bay of
Islands, which is Corner Brook also and some of the great work that's being
done. As I mentioned, I hear certain Members here talking about the fishery.
It's very prevalent in the Humber - Bay of Islands area, especially in the
Curling south shore and north shore areas. Just the spinoffs from the fishery
and the amount of work that's done by the fisheries is amazing.
The new minister is there now and I know they get
co-operation with the department all throughout and that you speak to the
people, that there is a good relationship between the business and the
department. I'm sure that's going to continue. I just have to recognize that
they do create a lot of employment in the Humber - Bay of Islands area.
Also, I'll bring it up again because last night I got a
few calls about the cellphone coverage. There are a lot of people, I feel, that
are going to, next year, start making plans for the south shore of the Bay of
Islands in tourism because of cellphone coverage. A lot of people in the
questionnaire they received from people outside: Do you have cellphone coverage?
A lot of people who want to go and spend a week in some nice community away,
they still want to be able to talk to people if an emergency comes up, and if
you don't have that.
Last night alone, I spoke to four or five people who
mentioned that it was great that there's going to be cellphone coverage coming
in the very near future. I look forward to that. I look forward to making the
first call. I hope the minister can find time to come out and make the first
call on the cellphone coverage, because for that part of the area, waiting so
long, working on it.
I remember back in 2011, Bell Aliant came out then.
There was a guy from Halifax, I can't remember his name, but he was so frank
with the people at the time, that it was cost prohibitive. He was so frank and
said, look, here's the reason why we can't get it done. A lot of people at the
time were upset. A lot of people were upset at the time, but I guarantee you one
thing, there was no one in that meeting at the time that this person came down
from Bell Aliant – Mark Duggan would know his name – that would say they didn't
respect his honesty. From there, you build on it.
The former minister started on the cellphone coverage,
Mr. Speaker, and it came from that. I remember back, I think it was three years
ago, that the minister at the time and the Member now went and brought it up to
start the cellphone coverage. That was great at the time, because then we could
see some kind of path forward that people can get it.
This is a problem in a lot of towns. A lot of towns
throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador now will get cell coverage because –
I think it was a million dollars that was put in? Yeah, it was a million dollars
that was put in and leveraged the business part of it and leveraged also the
community function. York Harbour and Lark Harbour, I think, I'm going on memory,
has $35,000 to put into it.
That was an initiative that was created by the – what's
the district? I keep forgetting the district? Northern Peninsula.
MR.
LANE:
The
Straits - White Bay.
MR.
JOYCE:
The
Straits -White Bay. I always has White Bay, but it's The Straits - White Bay.
That is the Member that started that. I wasn't sure which one. The Straits -
White Bay who started that.
MR.
LANE:
St. Barbe (inaudible) briefly.
MR.
JOYCE:
St.
Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows at the time it was brought forward, and I'm going on
memory, I think it was 14 areas that were being done. Now we can build on that;
we can definitely build on that.
Also, we look at the infrastructure throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I understand we all have to work with
Infrastructure because we all get concerns. We all have issues, especially in
rural parts. We all have concerns. I, again, am pleased that there was a lot of
work done. I thank the town councils in all the areas that we were working on to
ensure that they support us and support the government in getting a lot of work
done.
Water and sewer is another big one. There are a lot of
towns here that need upgrades for water and sewer and I know a lot of towns also
that don't have water and sewer. Lark Harbour is one in this district, but it's
not because of any government. The PC government was in, the Liberal government
was in, but at the time the residents didn't want to have it. This is not a
knock on any government not taking care of a rural municipality. It's that
municipalities didn't feel they wanted it at the time but now it's progressing.
Out in Lark Harbour, York Harbour they're going to have a massive project ready
for next year.
When you go on the north shore, I look at the great
work done in Meadows, especially with the rink and the ball field in Gillams. We
talk many times here about physical activity, and you look at two little small
towns – I look at Scott Blanchard and Linda, and his organization in Gillams.
They started out back in 2011. They wanted a ball field built because the north
shore was always great in softball. Templeton had a great team, both men and
women at softball, at the high school.
They wanted one built in Meadows, and they went out and
dug the holes and it was 16 feet of mud. So they said the only thing left is to
build one in Gillams. The recreation in Gillams started and now they have a
field that's regulation size across the province. They even had a provincial
tournament there last year.
In the summertime up there, any time of the day there
are 70 or 80 kids on the softball field. Everybody wants to have a game of
softball. If you want to talk about recreation, that is one example of the great
work that the Recreation Committee in Gillams has done.
If you look in Meadows, Jamie Brake and the Recreation
Committee built that arena over there. They got government funding, federal and
provincial, and the town put a lot of money into it. They have ball hockey
programs in the summertime with over 70 kids. Wintertime, they have so much
demand that they have a schedule set up. That's how much demand they have for
that outdoor rink for the work they did.
I go down to Cox's Cove and the recreation committee
keeping up the stadium. They keep physical activity for the kids. That's the
great work that's done in rural Newfoundland and Labrador with the help of
government, federal and provincial, the town councils, and I would be remiss if
I didn't bring up the great volunteers, who I'm sure are not just in Humber -
Bay of Islands, but in every district here that takes care of the youth in their
area.
I see my time is up. I thank you for the opportunity
for having a few words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and it's a great opportunity to speak today
to talk about the Government Services Committee.
We just went through Estimates a couple of weeks ago. I
had the opportunity to sit on this side taking the questions, on the other side
as well in the Committee listening to the questions. It's a great opportunity
for people to find out about how our departments work, where we spend our money.
I think the questions were well answered. Well questioned, well answered and
well received overall. So it's a great opportunity to speak again, Madam
Speaker, about my department today.
Before I start, almost everybody, and I guess this is
one for the Minister of Health. I would remind everybody, this is a great
opportunity to make an appointment to get your flu shot. I was lucky enough on
the weekend that my daughter got a flu shot for me. I'm not going to lie to
anybody, I'm not a lover of needles. The pictures on the Facebook page doesn't
really show the end result of after the needle went it.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
BRAGG:
Yeah, I'm a bit of a sook. You can torment me. I'm a bit of a sook when it comes
to a needle, but it's painless. It's well worth the time that it takes, make
your appointment, get out and get your flu needle.
On that, Madam Speaker, I can move on into my
department. My department is a big department. The hon. Member for Humber - Bay
of Islands just mentioned about the large department – it is a large department.
It's a big department. It incorporates the municipal infrastructure, as well as
our highways, our roads, our marine services, our provincial airports, buildings
design, tendering and contracts. We manage the 511 and we also have the highway
traffic cameras. But through all that, it's not a department that you're going
to spend much time twiddling your thumbs wondering what's next, because there's
always something next. It's a challenge that I look forward to, to be honest.
My first challenge, and one of my top notes here, I was
sworn into office – it may have been the 19th of August, and two days later we
had a ferry strike. The hon. Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island can
attest to this. When you have a disruption in the ferry service and you have
2,000 to 3,000 people in your district that are affected by this, you talk about
services. You imagine going from a service where you could get on the ferry at 7
in the morning and get off at 7 in the evening, to a ferry service where you
went across in the morning and came back in the evening. It made such a
difference to the people. People were upset, but they were very understanding.
They respected the captains' right to strike. They respected the right to follow
the rules and protocols. During all that, don't forget, we were dealing with the
COVID in which people couldn't freely go around. They had to stay in their
vehicle.
Then we go from the strike, which I think lasted close
on eight weeks, Madam Speaker, which was eight weeks that the people of Fogo
Island, Change Islands, Bell Island, St. Brendan's, Long Island and Ramea felt
that pain, to tomorrow or the next day, it's going to snow and you're going to
hear people get all upset because the snow wasn't cleared; we didn't get it off
the road as fast as it fell.
I'm just going to ask people, you have to have
patience. Take your time. There's really no rush. What's the old saying? There's
not a minute gone out of tomorrow yet. So don't be all upset because you have to
slow down behind a snow plow this year. Don't be all upset because the ferry
service is a little behind schedule. You know the old saying, what is it? Time
and tide waits for no man. That maybe true, but you have to wait for this
service.
I'm a big part in this department; we provide a great
service. We'll be the ones that'll be on the highways from 5 o'clock in the
morning – some areas we have 24-hour snow clearing, Madam Speaker, 24-hour snow
clearing. The same as we did in the past from Rocky Harbour to Stephenville,
24-hour snow clearing. Then we got from Grand Falls to Gander, 24-hour snow
clearing; from Clarenville into the city area; and it goes out to Route 75,
Carbonear way – can someone help me with that? I forget the name of that.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Veterans' Memorial.
MR.
BRAGG:
Veterans' Memorial, 24-hour snow clearing. It's the things that we do.
If you ever get the opportunity to meet the people that
work in my department, rather than be critical, be congratulatory. Throw them an
olive branch, buy them a coffee; give them a little gift. Just say thank you
because those men and women that we have that service our roads and service our
ferries and service our air ambulance, provide a vital service that too many
times people take for granted.
Too many times people are so critical. Where's the
plow? How come this is not done? How come that's not done? These people are very
responsible people that we have. Some of them worked with us for years; some of
them maybe this is their first winter on the snow plow. You have to have a
little patience. I give more to the snow plows because I spent 30 years dealing
in an industry that we did snow clearing. It may have been a small community but
I often think they have the same type of people in the same type of rush and the
same type of hurry every single day of the week. So just have a little patience,
we'll get it done, and we'll make the roads safe. Drive to the conditions at all
times, Madam Speaker.
The highways is the biggest thing because the highways
go – except for the Member for Torngat who may be able to correct me, I'm not
sure if we have a snow plow operator in Torngat, maybe a municipal one but I
know there's certainly not a road going in there.
I do know the Trans-Labrador Highway, I had a chance to
drive that this summer, Madam Speaker, and the work that's going on there. Lots
of times we say a bridge is slowing us down or roadwork is slowing us down. When
it's done, we see the results, the safe roads that we generate that are in this
province. That is from 1949 right until today and will continue right on
through, I guess until the end of time, until Newfoundland is no longer
Newfoundland. It's the opportunity to get out, you should get out and visit the
province and see what we have in our areas.
This year, we're putting 62 new plows on the highway.
That's good news throughout this province. We're going to replace some aging
fleet in this province. We're putting 62 new plows throughout this province.
Some Members are putting their hand up: Can I have one? I'm not sure. Go
trick-or-treating; maybe you might get a candy. I'm not sure we can give you a
plow over there.
The thing is, it's 62 throughout, I can only guess, I'm
going to say of 62, we probably have 662 plows throughout the province. The most
we do on the Island portion of the province are done by our own workers. There's
about 90 per cent contracted out in the Big Land, in Labrador. We're there;
we're committed. Our stocks are in place. Today, I started getting my first
report on equipment availability. I know we're there.
I know there are questions going to come at me in the
coming weeks, days, months – the media – about where's the plow, didn't see the
plow. We have a thing called the Plow Tracker. You can track any plow anywhere
in this province and see the last couple or three hours where the plow went to.
If you're going to get out, we have the highway cameras. The highway cameras –
you can refer to our webpage – we're dotted throughout this province; most of
our major routes, we have covered with highway cameras.
I guess I'm spending a lot of time on the highway
because it's where a lot of questions are going to come from. It's where the
questions come from in the House, from potholes to brush cutting. The hon.
Member for Harbour Main mentioned brush cutting today. One moose accident
because brush is not cut is too many, but we don't have the ability to clear it
all at the same time. We have to have a formula in which we follow through and
keep going. I'm thinking, brush cutting, every six, seven years you need to redo
what you had done.
But if you had the opportunity to drive the
Trans-Canada Highway, brush cutting is probably the best now along the
Trans-Canada as you've ever seen it in your life. This summer I drove from one
end of the province to the other and I can't think of anywhere where brush
cutting now has become a real danger close to the roads. In some cases, it's
growing up, so it's a big part of what we do and it's ongoing all the time.
The other thing we do, Madam Speaker, is our buildings,
our schools, our hospitals, our public buildings – Confederation Building,
Government House. There are so many buildings in this province. We have a staff
of somewhere around 1,600 to 1,800 people that work in the department. We have a
big staff. There's a bigger staff now because – again, I go back to the plow
operators – you get people that are called back for the winter operation, Madam
Speaker.
It's a great opportunity to – like I said before, take
a chance. If you get up in this House to speak, speak about the operators in
your district, the people. I look at some of our Members from the centre of the
city, you may not have highway operators, but you will use these people if you
travel outside the city. Thank your municipal workers because these are the
people that are getting you around and get out the fire trucks and ambulance
when you need it in an emergency.
With that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to move from the
highways. I shifted a little bit, I talked about the ferries.
Let's talk about air ambulances for a moment. We have a
fleet of air ambulances that we maintain in this province. Now, the Department
of Health will decide where these flights are located and where the crews come
from but our responsibility, Madam Speaker, is that these air ambulances are
ready and able to meet the needs of anybody where there's an emergency in this
province. That's a big responsibility, and I thank the people who do these air
ambulances and the pilots and the staff that go about it.
Then we have our water bomber fleet. Everybody might
think the water bomber fleet is all with the forestry and forest fires. They
will be the ones who will tell us where they need to be dispatched, when they
need to be dispatched, but we are the department that keeps these flights in the
air when they need to be; well maintained and positioned where they need to be
given the time of the year. I'm thinking right now most of these are probably
tucked away in a hangar waiting for the spring season to start. That's another
big part of what we do, Madam Speaker.
The other side of this is not only the transportation
side, it's the infrastructure. The Member opposite talked about municipal
infrastructure. I spent 29 years in a municipality talking about municipal
infrastructure, dealing with the towns across the province. I spent, I think it
was six or eight years on the Municipal Administrators Association.
We should talk about infrastructure, there we're
talking about water and sewer, the basics – clean and safe drinking water. You
would have heard me in my last portfolio talking about boil water advisories and
how on any given day there are close on 200 boil water advisories in this
province, Madam Speaker. We alone, as a government, cannot fix the 200. We need
a commitment from the people in the towns that are there.
We need the applications to come in. Applications are
open right now for ICIP and MCW. ICIP is our funding and MCW is our capital
works funding. Towns need to get their applications in. I think it's open until
the 14th of November. I'm looking for some assistance from –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
The
13th.
MR.
BRAGG:
The
13th, I'm sorry. The 13th of November, applications are open for.
Last week when I checked, the number of applications
for this year were so much lower than last year. We only had, I think it was
about 40 applications. Last year we had over 300. For everybody here who is
sitting in this House as an MHA, I encourage you to reach out to your
municipalities, your local service districts, ask them if they're interested in
applying and encourage them to get their application in before the 13th of
November. Because if they don't get their application in, Madam Speaker, we
can't help address their needs.
There's a pot of money there that we're going to
allocate again this year. The number eludes me right now, but I think it was $60
million, maybe, went out last year to municipalities in this province. That was
only our share, then there's the federal share and the municipal share.
It gets up close to $100 million worth of work that
happens in this province for municipalities. It may be a ball field, it may be,
like I said, an upgrade to water treatment, roads – roads are very important.
Most people don't see the water and sewer. They don't see the lift stations.
They don't see anything that's below the surface.
The vast majority of the money that's spent in your
municipalities goes beneath the surface. It's the infrastructure that's needed
to collect and give the water and sewer. You collect the sewer and you give the
water to the residents and provide the firefighting needs with hydrants. So
that's very basic, but it's a lot of need.
You'd be surprised at the number of municipalities and
local service districts and unincorporated areas out there right now that are
still on well and septic. Now, I'm not down on well and septic at all, because
if you have a safe, clean drinking water source, excellent, but a lot of people
don't have that.
I know a place out on Fogo Island, there's a little
point, Hewitt's Point, that you wonder why a gull would pitch there, but we did
years ago. The same as Greenspond, it is solid rock. It's blast. You do not need
a shovel on Hewitt's Point, you need dynamite. Those people need clean drinking
water, and right now there's an application in. So I thank the town for that,
because it needs to be done. There are probably 30 houses on that point. Again,
when they settled there years ago, the main reason is you didn't have to walk
too far from your fishing boat to get to your house.
The challenge today is figuring out how to weave a
waterline out through these houses, because many of them have drilled wells in
which, and you guessed it, what they would have gotten is salt water. Salt
water, of course, is not even good to brush your teeth in. You can't wash your
clothes in it. It's okay to flush the toilet and maybe get a shower, but not
good on any given day, let's just put it that way. If you ever fell in salt
water, you know what it is. So these people need safe and clean drinking water,
and the Town of Fogo has taken the initiative to fulfill that need.
When I think about Fogo, again, their infrastructure
now is a new town hall. Their current building, like many of the towns in this
province, would've been built on a JCP project from years ago, which was so much
built this year, so much next year and then the few years after that. There have
been some beautiful buildings built, but many of these buildings were built 40,
50 years ago and need to be replaced.
That's what we can do in our department. We can help
each individual MHA here enhance their district. I don't think there's any
district here – and I'll look around this room and someone could challenge me –
that is not qualified for Capital Works funding for the last couple of years
that is much needed for their towns.
I'm just thinking off the top of my head. If you drive
through almost anywhere; Corner Brook last year, a new aqua centre. Then there
was – I'm just throwing stuff out – the hospital in Springdale that we got done.
That's right. I'm forgetting the hospitals and long-term care facilities.
A new hospital in Springdale, replacing one of the
oldest cottage hospitals. I'm actually the Member that's proud of the oldest
cottage hospital now, Brookfield; Dr. Y. K. Jeon it's been dubbed. It's the
oldest cottage hospital in the province. I challenge anybody here to find one
older, but I've been told that's the oldest cottage hospital. In Springdale we
updated the older hospital. I had the opportunity to tour the new hospital, and
toured it with the people that are going to use it and they're so excited about
that.
Long-term care facilities; a brand new one opened up in
Corner Brook. If there was ever a place you can't wait to get into – and I hope
we all live old enough that we can enjoy one of these facilities. State of the
art, there's nothing else to call it. I visited the one in Gander. The old one,
Bonnews Lodge out my way, there are two people in a small room not big enough to
put two puppy dogs in, but we have two people in these rooms. The new hospital
has beautiful rooms.
The lift, you have a lot of people getting into this
who hurt their backs and that sort of thing. The lifts in the hospital are
amazing. You take someone out in the sling, put them down in their chair and get
them where you can wheel them in. You don't have to lift them back out to get
their bath or their shower. That is what we need. That's the commitment we need.
I guess the other thing – and people would see it if
you drive Prince Philip Parkway right now – they're starting the new parking
garage, which is going to be part of the new mental health facility. Taking the
Waterford out of this area, taking the stigma away from mental health is
something that everybody in this House should be proud of because every one of
us are a part of seeing that a reality. We all sit around this Table. I may sit
on the government side and you may sit in Opposition, but we are all a part of
the people who sit in this great House who will make mental health care better
for the people of this province, and not only the people of the province.
Last week, or two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to go
into Labrador. We had a sod-turning event in Labrador; a new wing going on the
hospital up there. Six beds might not sound like much, but if you're six
families that had your loved one here in St. John's or out in Corner Brook, now
you're in Labrador and you're lucky enough to have some in Goose Bay as a
facility that can take six members, and family can go to.
I see, Madam Speaker, my time is running out and I had
so much to do. I guess our department has so much to give. I'll close on this
note, as I started, thank the men and women who serve this province in the
capacity they do to keep our roads safe, they keep our airlines flying, keep our
airports going. Madam Speaker, do you know what? If we never get a chance to say
– I'm out of time.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's always an honour to stand in this House and talk.
I had the honour of taking part in two different sets of Estimates and watching
some others and listening in, specifically, on Transportation and Infrastructure
and Finance.
First off, I would be remiss if I didn't thank everyone
who works in those departments for all the hard work that they did in order to
get this budget in place and the work associated with Estimates.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARROTT:
Certainly, given COVID times it made their jobs much harder and much more
stressful, I guess, with a transition in government.
Madam Speaker, in my district, we have all the same
problems as every district in Newfoundland. I think about roads and I think
about the TCH and rural roads. It's okay to say that we've put down a lot, but
we got a long ways to go.
One of the best examples I can give is the Town of
Terra Nova. We've been working hard with the minister and his department to try
and get some pavement to the point where we went down and actually supplied the
coordinates on a map for the sections of pavement that we thought should be
replaced. The response we got from the department was: We can't pave but we will
tear up the existing pavement and maintain it as a dirt road. Now, I got to tell
you, if that's where we're heading in this province, we're in an awful bad spot.
We've got students that come up out of there to go to school in Glovertown
Academy, we've got people who commute to work and we got people who commute for
groceries and other requirements.
The unfortunate part about a lot of rural Newfoundland
is that, based on populations, some of these communities don't necessarily meet
the standards. The other thing we don't look at – and a good example is St.
Brendan's and Terra Nova is another good example – while some of these
communities may only have 90 people there in the wintertime. In the summertime,
there are 250, 300 or 400 people even, they become communities and they pay
taxes and they do all of the things that everyone else does. The reality of it
is that their safety ought to be as important in the summer as it is in the
winter. So I would urge the department to have a stronger look at how they
maintain some of these roads and what the plan is going forward.
In Question Period, the minister made a comment about
the award of contracts. Nobody ever suggested that the early bid process was a
bad thing. What is suggested is that the management of how these bids are put
out needs to be looked at. The example I'll give you is that if you have one
company who is the low bidder – and I would argue that the safety of the
commuting public is what should be most important. So our highways ought to be
safe. I would argue that they don't replace highways because they're safe and
because they're in good condition. They're replaced because they need
replacement and the people who drive on them are in jeopardy. If that's the
case, then the scoring shouldn't be simply based on price.
If we get a glut of work by one contractor who can't
fulfill his obligation – and a good example of that is the Trans-Labrador
Highway. We can't afford to have a year delay on a highway. It's great that the
Trans-Labrador Highway is getting done. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who
was born in Labrador, I love Labrador and I think it's great that we have a
highway going through there, but the delays are unacceptable, to be quite frank.
If you look at the smaller communities in Newfoundland
and Labrador, they feel the same way. Understanding the class of roads, the
Class 1, 2 and 3, the people that live in these communities, they're in jeopardy
when they drive out over some of these roads. Believe me when I say, they're in
jeopardy.
We spend an exorbitant amount of money doing work
overs. We put cold patch down in the middle of the summer – which I would argue
doesn't happen anywhere else in North America – because hot patch isn't
available. It's further than 50 kilometres away was the answer I was given.
Well, I can tell you, we're probably better off driving 50 kilometres and
getting hot patch to fix these holes, than we are fixing them with cold patch.
Because if we fix them once and we fix them right, we won't have to go back
three times during a summer because of washouts for Class A that isn't holding
up.
That all boils down to management and safety, that's
the reality of it. The delays in these contracts for roads getting done, as the
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island said this morning, quite frankly,
it's unacceptable. At the end of the day, there are plenty of paving companies
here, and the work needs to happen. The excuses such as no liquid asphalt is
just totally unacceptable. We have multiple liquid asphalt plants on the Island,
all of which have the capability of doing polymer. It's strictly the choice of
the contractor whether or not to utilize them. We have never, this summer, run
out of liquid asphalt, contrary to what the government would make you believe.
Our ferry systems, and the minister alluded to the fact
that when he came in, he came in to a ferry strike and it was a tough situation.
The ferries, obviously, affects people on this Island in ways that most of us
don't understand, but, again, the ferry systems can probably be managed a little
better.
When you look at a tourism standpoint and there's no
additional runs in the summer or peak season and they maintain the same amount
of runs in the winter, it just doesn't make sense. People are trying to get back
and forth for work. They're trying to get back and forth for goods and services.
The addition of ferry runs in the summer just makes good sense from a tourism
standpoint and it is obviously an industry that we need to expand.
We talk about mechanics and I asked some questions on
mechanics. We're currently 25 mechanics short in the province.
MR.
BRAGG:
Eighteen.
MR.
PARROTT:
We
hired seven yesterday, apparently; 25 mechanics short.
The problem with our mechanics with Transportation and
Infrastructure is not that they're not out there. We hire these people at $25,
give or take, and they max out at $27. Hydro hires the same mechanic for $39 an
hour, so you have to think about where they're going to go. We're hiring people,
we're training them. They're getting a little bit of experience and they're
going off to another department within government, which makes no sense. It
doesn't put us in a situation where we can retain people. There are simple fixes
to stuff like that.
We talk about infrastructure and the amount of
buildings that we've built. We've asked questions on the mental health facility,
and I'll still say, the mental health facility, as an example, there was a bid
that came in and we're not clear on all the answers, $40 million less and built
a year quicker. The first thing that jumps out at me is the year quicker because
we are in a mental health crisis, make no mistake about it. As good as we may or
may not have done with mental health for initial visits, for follow-up visits
and acute care, I don't think that we're doing very well. This building could
certainly be used a year sooner, there's no question.
Then we look at the $40 million, and $40 million could
build another school or the infrastructure get fixed. The things that it could
do would be astronomical, certainly in COVID times, after we bottomed out on the
purse and we're out of money.
I sat here one day, and it's kind of funny, the
minister looked across and he yelled out the company's from Spain, the company's
from Spain. He said that because he knows where I stand on Newfoundland first.
MR.
BRAGG:
Point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR.
BRAGG:
I
challenge the Member to find in Hansard
where I said the company's from Spain. I challenge the Member to do it. It's
wrong. It's misleading and it's wrong.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
I'll retract the statement, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Somebody from the opposite side chanted that the company was from Spain. Are you
okay with it? I didn't indicate it was the minister, to be quite frank. Anyhow,
all of that aside, there is a bit of a geography lesson to be learned here
because the main contractor for the building is from Australia. The difference
between Spain and Australia is quite a distance, but I'll remind the government
that neither of those countries are in Canada.
The mental health facility to me is something that
should be important to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The simple fact
that it could have been done a year quicker is the most important point of that
whole scenario; $40 million is substantial; it could've done a lot. But one year
sooner, when people are in distress, is a huge deal. Make no mistake about it.
We talk about all kinds of different things with public
procurement and Newfoundland first –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
PARROTT:
Madam Speaker, I can't hear anything here.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Continue.
MR.
PARROTT:
Let's go to public procurement, Newfoundland first. We've heard lots on that and
we've seen the Premier stand up out in Corner Brook and rave about 85 per cent.
We've seen the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure's mathematics, from
95 down to 90 mysteriously over a two-week period, which was an answer that
would just put him in a place that made him sound good. The bottom line is if
there's one person from away working here when work could be done by a
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that's one too many.
As I've said in the past, if you talk to somebody from
Newfoundland who is unemployed, in a situation where somebody from away is
working, that individual is having a hard time putting food on his table.
Period. Cut and dry. There's no other alternative to it.
We should be trying to find a way not to buy water from
Ottawa, not to buy soap from China. Those are simple things. If we can do things
here, there's a lot of hand soap and water bottled in Newfoundland and we should
be looking at it. It's a path forward and it helps us all out. If we put
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first, then this government will succeed. It's
time that we do that.
The Member for Cartwright - L'Anse aux Clair made a
statement about the Premier saying we're at base camp. I strongly disagree.
We're not at base camp. Again, something I've said in the House in the past is
that anyone can climb a mountain. Mountains don't determine who you are. I would
say that we're in the deepest valley that this province has ever been in and
base camp is quite a ways away. We need to find a way to navigate our way
through this valley and get to base camp and then decide whether or not we're
going to climb the mountain. But we're not at base camp, we're in trouble; we're
in a bad spot.
You listen to people talk about diversification. The
other night I sat down and I was thinking: What do we have here, economically?
The reality of it is we have a fishery, we have forestry, we have agriculture,
we have farming, we have mining, we have offshore oil and gas, we have a
refinery, a pulp and paper mill, renewable energy, an advanced tech sector, a
tourism sector, all things – and I probably left quite a few out – which make us
pretty diverse. What we don't have for a lot of those is secondary processing.
So the reality of it is this is a province that has it all, but what I see is
it's a government that hasn't done anything with it. We need to start focusing
on looking after the businesses we have, versus looking for other ways to
diversify right now.
I'll go back to Transportation and Infrastructure, and
we talk about water bombers and air ambulance and stuff. When we look at air
ambulance, we have an air ambulance system that is obviously supported by 103
Search and Rescue for the coast of Labrador and other rural areas. We probably
have a need to start looking at landing strips and the ability to land in remote
areas. We have Nain with an inability to land at night and other coastal areas
in Labrador. So while we do have an air ambulance system, it does not service
all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It leaves a lot of people in Newfoundland and
Labrador at a very strong disadvantage.
We currently have one water bomber out of service and
the reality of that bomber ever coming back into service is pretty limited, I
would think, which is obviously a government decision. I would suggest that the
water bomber goes to the College of the North Atlantic in Gander and we see what
they can do with it, if it's from a cost-savings standpoint.
The minister talked about the ICIP and the multi-year
capital works and clean water. Clean water, I would agree with him, is a very,
very important part of every community in this province and it needs to be a
focus for this government. It needs to be a focus for the communities and there
needs to be a way to make that work.
Another big thing that I would like to talk about is
the LIRA. We have families that are in jeopardy. We've heard a couple of Members
talked about these locked-in pensions and their inability to access them. Right
now, there are people not knowing where they're going to get money for their
next mortgage payment and they don't know where they're going to get money for
groceries.
These locked-in pensions aren't something they want to
access. Nobody wants to jeopardize their future, but people need to get access
to that. I understand that there has to be rules and regulations surrounding how
they get access to that, the amount that they get access to. I understand that
the actuaries have concerns about the amount of money taken out, and I would
suggest that actuaries can probably give you a pretty solid number with
projections to say how much money can be accessed safety from each one these
pensions.
These pensions are federally and provincially regulated
and the reality of it is they know how fluid they are and how much money can
come out of them. I really think that it's important that we do it now and not
later. Government really needs to step up and try to get some legislation passed
between now and Christmas so people have access to this.
The reality of this is now you can access them through
death, and we may never know that somebody died because they didn't have access
to money. But you got to understand that mental health is affected by people's
financial means and if people cannot access their funds that they have in their
own back accounts, obviously in desperate times, things happen. The mental
health crisis that this province faces right now is growing exponentially, I
would argue. It's never been so big. So now is the time to try and help these
people.
I apologize; I'm a little bit all over the place.
Service NL talked about digital government a little
earlier, the Member for Burin - Grand Bank, and the number that was thrown
around here was a 1,400 per cent increase since COVID. While that number is
impressive and it is great and I think that we need to move forward digitally,
people also need to understand that this was something that was forced upon
people. It wasn't taken well by everybody and there are a lot of people who were
left out.
Our office was inundated with phone calls from people
who had no access to Internet. They couldn't get appointments at motor vehicle
registration and other places. They couldn't renew their MCP cards. They
struggled with it. We got a long way to go before people can actually access all
of these services right across the Island.
While I think it's important that we implement these
types of services, we also need to understand that not everybody can afford
computers and Internet, or not everybody has Internet. It's a very important
thing to consider.
I would just like to talk a little tiny bit about my
district. In my District of Terra Nova, like I said earlier –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
PARROTT:
–
we go through all the same issues as everyone with roads and we've worked well
with some of the ministers over there and things have gotten fixed, by all
means. But not everything and not everything can be addressed based on money and
everything.
The one thing I will say is that the thought that
there's a 24-hour snow clearing service in Newfoundland and Labrador is just
silliness. It doesn't happen. I had a school in my district last year that was
closed for 21 days and one kilometre away from the other side of the school
where the bus went in the opposite direction, they missed 12 days and it was a
direct result of snow clearing.
When the snowplows don't go out on the road until 6
o'clock in the morning or 5 o'clock in the morning, it's reactive and not
proactive. Highways are cleared much quicker when you're proactive versus
reactive. I understand it is cost savings, but at the end of the day safety and
education has to be a part of that equation.
Madam Speaker, every MHA that gets involved in this
wants to do whatever they can for their district, and I'm no different than
anyone here. At the end of the day, when we all came in, in 2019, we were left
with a Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan. Some districts saw no work to be done
and some had a lot to be done.
I would suggest that rural Newfoundland now needs to be
the focus. I've seen a substantial amount of blacktop on the TCH, but if you
look at some of these Class 2 roads and Class 3 roads, there needs to be a great
deal of attention. It needs to happen sooner than later. We have promises of
roads being fixed and culverts being replaced for 15 months now and it hasn't
happened, not to mention a bridge in Clarenville that nobody wants to take
responsibility for.
Oddly enough, the current Justice Minister, the
previous minister of Transportation and Works, had indicated to me at one point
after there was a legal question asked that there was going to be some movement
on this. Just before he switched portfolios I received an email saying that
their stand was their stand, there was no movement and there was no legal
opinion coming. I would argue that if a municipality poses a legal question,
then government has an obligation to answer that. In this case, they didn't.
We have a bridge that is the pipeline to the Bonavista
Peninsula. There are 80,000, 85,000 vehicles a day that goes over it. It is not
a municipal bridge. While government would argue it is, it is not. There were
two transfer documents, neither mentioned the bridge. One cut off at the end of
Clarenville, about 500 metres before you get to the bridge; the other cut off at
the intersection of Balbo Drive, again, about 300 metres from the bridge and the
bridge is in the middle. The bridge is down to one lane and in major disrepair
for four years now. Government vehicles cross over that bridge every day and the
government doesn't want to do anything about it. It's time for somebody to step
up and have a look at it.
Madam Speaker, I'd just like to thank all the people in
my district for their support. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be here without
them. I will say, I think we can do a much better job. It is time for government
to start putting the people first.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a true pleasure to sit and speak to the budget.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say how honoured I am to represent the District
of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi. It is a vibrant and dynamic neighbourhood made
up of a wide range of individuals. St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has extreme
wealth. You walk through tree-lined streets with pools in the yard, and that is
absolutely wonderful to watch and that helps communities, but at the same time
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has abject poverty with people living on those
tree-lined streets begging for change.
Within St. John's East - Quidi Vidi you can eat at
restaurants from Ethiopian to Chinese, to Korean to Greek, to Indian to North
American. In St. John's East - Quidi Vidi you can earn a degree. You can learn a
trade at the Anna Templeton Centre. You can buy clothes that is created by
designers featured in France's Fashion Week. St. John's East - Quidi Vidi is a
hub that represents a lot of wonderful things happening throughout our province.
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi also has its share of
problems. Madam Speaker, just recently I was chatting with some folks who run
the community store next door to my home and the lady was checking the beer
bottles that were being returned from the folks in our neighbourhood. I said,
are you checking those beer bottles for cigarette butts? That's a shame you have
to go through and get the cigarette butts out and get the beer caps out. She
said no, I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for needles.
This person was looking for needles being disposed of
in beer bottles being returned. That is a very sad representation of that
neighbourhood, Mr. Speaker, because that's not something we've seen in days gone
by. We were concerned about, oh, somebody put a dirty cigarette butt in and we
can't recycle that.
Right now, we are talking about a public health issue.
That means that individuals who are using these needles are not getting some
services they require but they're also putting the individuals who are working
for minimum wage in these convenience stores in jeopardy. I think that's a sad
reflection on where our society is right now. It suggests to me that perhaps we
need to consider how we are allocating a lot of our money and some of the
decisions that we are making.
Mr. Speaker, you have probably seen time and time and
time again, and, in fact, almost on a daily basis now, my neighbourhoods are on
lockdown or my neighbourhoods have police tape around them or my neighbourhoods
have police wandering around looking for the people who have perpetrated
assaults on individuals. Mr. Speaker, far too often I hear reports of shots
fired and neighbourhoods on lockdown. That tells me there's far more going on
than we are not having enough roads paved.
Mr. Speaker, my role here is to not only look at St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi but to look at the budget in its entirety and try to
piece together a comprehensive overview of many of these other pieces.
Certainly, many of us can speak to a lot of these individual pieces and we have
enormous expertise in our particular fields of study and our particular areas of
interest, but, Mr. Speaker, too often I hear of silos being created and
decision-making in one department that's going to have rather extreme effects on
other government departments.
I'm going to, over the course of the next 15 minutes,
weave together some of those concerns that I see. I'm going to speak a little
bit to the macro but also a little bit to the micro of economics.
Before I get there, Mr. Speaker, too often I hear
people throw casually around: The economics of something doesn't make sense. I
take a little bit of offence to that, but the reason I do so is because the
definition of economics is often misconstrued or misunderstood. The definition
of economics is simply the study of the allocation of scarce resources to
satisfy unlimited wants and needs. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is exactly
what we are facing in this House of Assembly and every time we develop a budget.
Economics is, in fact, the study of choice. That choice, of course, and those
choices that we make are very clearly defined by our priorities and our
motivation.
Mr. Speaker, far too often I hear the motivation of
budget building to be more of get dollars off the books or make sure that the
budget balances. Economics is about far more than that. That talks a lot about
money and balancing government policies and a little bit about monetary policy,
but there's a movement in economics that goes beyond that. It measures things
like well-being and society and how people interact and live with one another.
I'd like to talk a little bit about that as I make my way through some of these
discussions. For now, let's start with the terms of reference and statement of
work for the Premier's Economic Recovery Team.
My first point here, as I look through this, I was
rather grateful that the Economic Recovery Team has acknowledged some of the key
issues facing us, but in a point of irony I note that none of the individuals on
the Economic Recovery Team are actual economists. So I see that as a little gap,
perhaps, in its compilation.
I would like to point out, and I quote: “… the Province
has added over $6.3 billion to its net debt in the past 6 years.” In spite of
the sound bites and keywords that are often thrown about, we've added $6.3
billion to our net debt. So our finances have not, essentially, been getting
better.
I'll also point out – and this is something that I've
spoke about time and time and time again. It says: “Over the past 13 years, the
Province has become overly dependent on oil revenues. This reality spells
revenue volatility.”
Well, Mr. Speaker, a funny story. The first time I
called the Auditor General to talk a little bit about some of the things in some
of his reports, I jokingly said: Hey, big fan, read all your books.
Unfortunately, I'm a very small subsection of the population in that I read and
enjoy reading the Auditor General's reports because there's a raft of
information there that I will point out, if one was to read the mandate of the
Premier's Economic Recovery Team, part 1, a through e, are all activities of the
Auditor General. So it would be really good to see, instead of a redundancy
there, perhaps just a reference to the Auditor General and some of that
individual's recommendations.
In fact, time and time and time again the three
measures that the Auditor General uses are vulnerability, flexibility and
sustainability. So over the past 13 years, as referenced in this term of
statement of work, we have not addressed that vulnerability. In fact, when we
talk about vulnerability, vulnerability simply means the extent to which our
province is going to be subjected to factors beyond our control.
There are three key factors: one of which is the price
of oil, which we have no control over. The next one is the value of the Canadian
dollar. Again, we have no control over it. That is influenced by the Bank of
Canada, but largely influenced by global economic transactions. Then the third
thing is the interest rate, and that is defined by the Bank of Canada. We have
no control over that as a provincial parliament.
So we have not done anything to address our
vulnerability. That is, of course, very disconcerting. It will be nice to see if
perhaps the Economic Recovery Team can offer some suggestions to get around
that.
Flexibility and sustainability, I will not go on about
that because we have a very limited time here, but our budget is not very
flexible because we have committed to enormous outlays of expenditures without
any real tangible approach to how we can adjust those had our revenues changed,
as we are facing right now with the second huge drop in oil prices in recent
memory. That tells us that our economy and our budgets are not particularly
sustainable. Another factor that the Auditor General routinely mentions.
Mr. Speaker the other point about a budget is that a
budget is a point in time document. It simply looks at what is the current
economic situation and says this is how our revenues and expenditures will look
for one particular year. The problem is that we are on a continuum of spending,
and that continuum of spending transcends all year. So the decisions we make
today will have, quite possibly, tremendous effects in future years. Those
effects sometimes are a little intangible because we look and say, well, perhaps
we want to divest from oil in 2050.
In 2050, I'll be 80, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not quite sure
what my cognitive function will be and I may or may not care if we've divested
from oil at that point, but I can guarantee you that my nieces and nephews do. I
can guarantee you the babies that are born today will be very concerned with how
divested from oil we are and what our climate looks like tomorrow.
When we talk about making decisions at a point in time,
we often ignore the long-term consequences of many of our short-term decisions.
For example, as I go back to the Statement of Work from the Premier's Economic
Recovery Team, I note there is nothing that is protected or nothing that is
going to be held sacrosanct. As the Premier has said, everything is on the
table. That causes me great pains because I have seen some of the devastating
effects of past decision.
For example, and this is something that is concerning
for, of course, the New Democratic caucus. We understand the reputation of Dame
Greene, and she has not been known for privatizing public services. Well, that
does get dollars off the books which goes to the motivation for making decisions
about budgets. If our decisions about budgets are get dollars off the books,
then it's easy to privatize things like, for example, our cleaning services.
Here's a really tangible example of that. I remember a
time when the cleaning services were privatized. Once upon a time, everyone who
cleaned our bathrooms and vacuumed our floors and washed our kitchens to help us
do our job here in the House of Assembly were unionized and had access to a
pension plan and got wage increases associated with the increases negotiated by
their union. They had health care, and they knew they were going to have a
pension plan.
Fast forward to today, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you
that several of the cleaners here have come to me, begging me to try and ensure
that the little bit of money they got from being an essential employee during
COVID, when they were most exposed to potential dangers – they were begging me
to get that money so they could go to the dentist. I have folks who work here in
this building who I have to help get public housing for.
That tells me the decision to privatize our cleaning
services definitely got money off the books, but on the other side of it we see
people who are living in poverty, people who have to come begging to find a
place to live, people who can't afford basic health care. That is a burden on us
right now and that is a burden on them right now. That tells me those short-term
decisions are making very negative long-term consequences that we must deal with
right now.
We need to think a little bit more fulsomely and with a
little bit more lead time and with a little bit more of consideration of what
will happen in the future before we make rash decisions today. Again, I go back
to there is no reference to anything being sacrosanct in the Economic Recovery
Team's mandate. That should make us all very concerned for what our society is
going to look like five years down the road or ten years down the road, Mr.
Speaker.
Some of the other things that are happening in our
economy right now; for a while we had our joint COVID response committee. I was
getting pretty regular updates on mental health support usage, and the rates of
those usages skyrocketed. New programs have been implemented, which is
fantastic, but that tells me we have a problem in our society that is being
largely unaddressed.
Mr. Speaker, just today I spoke to an individual who
runs a food bank, who said they got 20 calls per week pre-COVID and, in fact,
pre-end of CERB. Now they are getting 50 calls a day. That tells me the social
safety net, for which we are all responsible, has failed and we need to do
something about that right now.
(Disturbance.)
MS.
COFFIN:
Perhaps we should also answer the phone.
Mr. Speaker, another thing I have heard, speaking to a
one-off from a fire captain. They're going to two suicide calls a day, or a
shift; two suicide calls a day. That's a reflection of the desperation in this
society, of the loss of hope, of the loss of job prospects. That makes me cry.
That hurts my soul. These are the things that we need to address.
Mr. Speaker, as we go through this budget, I'm trying
to weave a few of these pieces together now. We go back to our silo, we make
decisions in our silos. We know that our children are obese. I'm going to flick
over to an Auditor General's report here. The Auditor General's report on
Healthy Eating in Schools, well, it shows that Newfoundland and Labrador has
about 37 per cent of our youth are overweight or obese.
I'll quote from the Auditor General's report:
“Childhood obesity is a precursor to adult health risks such as type 2 diabetes,
high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Newfoundland and Labrador has some of
the highest rates of chronic disease of all Canadian provinces.” This is
something that will land on the Minister of Health's desk soon enough; however,
right now, it's sitting on the Minister of Education's desk. We need both of
those ministers to be talking together to ensure the short-term decisions that
we make, perhaps investing in healthier food for schools, will make better
health outcomes so that the Health Minister is not going to be dealing with an
even larger crisis in chronic disease down the road.
Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we have someone who's
taking responsibility for ensuring the dynamic integration of policies across
departments.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to touch very, very briefly on
Transportation and Infrastructure. We all enjoy a road, a bridge or a nice
little bit of pavement and fresh pavement is really lovely to drive quickly on;
however, because we are making decisions that will get debt off our books, we
are making decisions to invest in P3s. These public-private partnerships are
designed to hide debt. It takes the initial cost of building something off
government's books so, look, our debt isn't so bad; however, it means that we
have to pay out a stream of income into the future. Quite often, that stream of
income into the future has an escalation associated with it, quite often tied to
the cost of living.
What we see are the people who are building these
buildings for us, we promise to pay them maybe 3 per cent per year, if that's
what our consumer price index says. So we have this ongoing and escalating
payout that's happening, but on the flip side of it, those cleaners that we
privatized back in the '90s do not get a cost of living. They only get minimum
wage and they get increases in minimum wage when the minimum wage goes up.
Sometimes that goes up irregularly and sometimes that goes up at a fraction of
the consumer price index. We're giving huge amounts of money away to
corporations and we are not taking care of the individuals who have elected us
here.
There is a distortion in our decisions, Mr. Speaker,
and we need to comprehensively address this. I only regret I only had 20 minutes
to do it. I have pages upon pages more to speak about and I'll look for the
opportunity to share that with everyone.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Every time I start I say I'm probably not going to use
up my time and then I end up rushing towards the end. I was also told to start
on a positive note and try not to digress down.
Just looking at a positive note, one of the things that
was included in the budget was the pre-feasibility for the road to the North
Coast, $200,000. That's a very positive thing and I thank this government.
Sometimes, as an MHA on the other side, you have to take what I'm saying,
personally. I know sometimes it may feel like an attack, but when I'm voicing
the concerns for my district and my constituents, I'm not really trying to
attack anyone, I'm just trying to draw attention to the gaps. In all honesty, I
don't feel overly positive.
Getting back to why I ran just about a year and a half
ago, I ran naively because of the cancellation of the Lewisporte freight ferry.
I naively thought that was the biggest problem we were facing on the North
Coast. When I got into politics and I started to realize how things worked, I
realized, no. The loss of the freight ferry from Lewisporte that was really
critical to keeping our food costs and our building material costs down to a
reasonable level – not cheap, a reasonable level – that was just basically a
symptom – the cancellation. For years, there's been an erosion of services for
the North Coast. That's why I get upset. I sometimes get upset – upset covers a
lot of emotions, like anger.
When I looked at the big situation, I said, okay, if
the Lewisporte ferry is just a symptom and I'm looking at the budgets now – the
budget last year and the budget this year – so why was the ferry removed? It was
removed to save money. I went to the minister of Transportation, the former one,
and I was in talks with the deputy minister of Transportation and the ADM and I
was told that we are not the carrying the cost of the Lewisporte freight boat
anymore because now the roads are built. It was a replacement of service.
As the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs and
Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation pointed out, in her district she has a
road connection and there are the last few kilometres of pavement. Also, there's
a road going over to Lab West, my fellow MHA there for Lab West. The roads are
put in and Goose Bay is the hub.
I know it's a proud thing to talk about finalizing the
Trans-Labrador Highway and we're almost finished completion of the
Trans-Labrador Highway, but I have to tell you, it's alienating, it's
frustrating. It makes me mad; it makes me upset. I feel sorry for my people in
my district. They're minimized, marginalized by that, because the message that's
being sent is: You are not a part of Newfoundland and Labrador.
If the Trans-Labrador Highway is going to be complete,
the completion of the paving, then do you know something? We should probably
look at becoming a territory or be affiliated with the northern Arctic
Indigenous communities, because that's the message that's being sent to my
district, my people.
I remember when I was running, the former MHA, who's my
cousin, was talking about that. I got so angry and the people in my district get
so angry. I think a lot of times it's out of ignorance. When people talk about
things, they intend to alienate my six Indigenous communities. I don't think
they intend to offend them, but the truth of the matter is, it is. Because if
we're not a part of the Trans-Labrador Highway and we're not a part of the
completion, then what are we, honestly? Are we just a resource to prop up
Northern Peninsula communities by funding them, by having them foster our
children that's been taken away through CSSD, honestly?
Do you know something? That's not my words; that's
words of people in my district. Successful, effective, professional people who
say that to me. That's one of the arguments made to me. It's crazy. What does a
road mean to us if the freight board from the Island that helped us maintain
some resemblance of food security was able to get our building materials into
the North Coast? Well, if that's taken away from us because the roads are built,
than I say the obvious commitment of this province is to get us a road.
Talking about food security, last winter the food on
the North Coast was really expensive. The shipping costs have gone up four to
six times, but do you know something? In my notes here I have one, two, three –
I have four question marks by that, because in actual fact the food has
increased greatly. I passed around a picture of food costs on the North Coast
this winter, and the one thing that resonates with people is pork chops.
Everybody knows how expensive pork chops are or how cheap pork chops can be.
It's a staple for low-income families, in actual fact, who can't afford beef and
those type of commodities. Looking at that, $28.
It's not even about the cost of the food or the
building materials, what's happening now on the North Coast because of the huge
costs and the logistics of getting materials to the North Coast, there's not
many building materials left that's actually sold even during the summer. If
somebody wants to put a porch on their house, they have to go through the huge
cost of ordering and getting it shipped in. There's no paint in the stores; very
few stores now carry paint, and even things like nails. So it's creating a
problem for us.
Last summer with the new ferry, a person that I knew,
actually her husband, was wanting a boat. It was his dream boat; he was working
on rotation at Voisey's Bay. As an incentive for him to keep going away, they
were going to buy this really nice boat with a nice motor. Anyway, last year
they went and got it.
Normally, they would just get it delivered to
Lewisporte, put on the boat and up. In actual fact, when they bought the boat
they were going to ship it. It would cost $3,500 to get it to the dock in Goose
Bay. Any savings they might have had of buying the boat was gone. Also, they
couldn't get that boat in Labrador anyway. What they did, they actually bought a
used pickup truck. They drove the boat up to Goose Bay and then they sold the
truck. That was the way they recovered their costs. That was basically their
solution, but not everybody can do that.
When you hear me talking – I was being interviewed one
day and I said pick a topic and I'll tell you how we're vulnerable, I'll tell
you how we're being marginalized. For example, last year, when we were talking
about the costs, the former minister of Transportation – I don't mean to be
picking on him too much – was out doing the scrum. He said they're going to save
so much money because the cost of shipping a snowmobile from Lewisporte costs
about $120. Now, I'm a bit loose with the numbers but it was around $120, what
he said. If you ship it from Goose Bay you save $40.
Do you know what I did? I went out to the scrum and I
said you may actually save some money, you save $80 in shipping, but when you
buy the machine on the Island, you save a minimum of $1,420 off the top. That
actually could be more like probably $2,000, $3,000. So what's $80 shipping?
That's nothing. That goes with everything – building materials.
Like I said, I'm trying to be positive here and I'm
trying to be grateful; $200,000 is really, really good. That's really good to be
put towards a pre-feasibility study, but it's still a pre-feasibility study.
When you look at pre-feasibility studies, they don't really mean anything unless
the feasibility study accompanies them and then the actual construction happens.
Let me draw attention to the Nain airport. People could
die right now. We've been waiting years to get night landing lights on the
runway in Nain. When you have a medevac, if it's in Nain, hopefully the weather
will be good so you can actually get the patient out in a critical manner. We've
had people die on the coast because they couldn't get out in time.
Just looking at that now, they have the feasibility
study. So I was wondering, what's the hang up now? What's the plan? Do you know
something? This province has the hang up. This province is not approving or not
supporting the feasibility study for the Nain airstrip. The federal government
is committed to it. They've even offered to increase their cost-share ratio.
Now, we can't even get to the feasibility study and it's going to take years,
actually, for the airstrip to be built. What I say for my district is if
somebody needs to be medevaced and it can't be done in a timely fashion because
you can't actually get the medevac in, you might actually – if it's after dark,
who's responsible for that?
The one thing I also like to point out about the
feasibility study is let's look at the dollars now. I sit here in the House and
I hear repeated over and over and will read in
Hansard, the former minister of Transportation – because I'm dealing
with transportation issues, that's the only reason why I'm picking on the former
minister of Transportation. Once I get to the other ones, I'll pick on you, too.
I heard, and we can go back in
Hansard, we'll say the former minister spent $9 million for paving
in his district. And he's not contesting it, so it's probably more than $9
million. The thing about it is if you can spend that money on paving in one
district, you can afford to put up some money for a feasibility study so that
people don't die in Nain while they're waiting to be medevaced out. A heart
attack, a stroke, a snowmobile accident, a fire, these are all things that rely
on medevac.
COVID-19, well, how wonderful are we doing? Just
because the virus is not in our communities. Look at my district, the health
care. The thing about it is if somebody gets sick – and another thing that
really bothered me is I was told by the CEO of Labrador-Grenfell well, we have a
plan. I said, what's your plan? She said, we'll medevac them to Goose Bay. It's
only in Nain that they have two ventilators. The rest of the North Coast
communities have no ventilators. If we get somebody that really gets a bad
infection, the thing about it is there are no ventilators.
Now, the capacity of the clinics is one to two people.
So if you have a family of seven, a family of five, maybe a few more relatives,
you could have 10 to 15 to 20 to 30 people sick, so what are you doing to do
with them? The CEO said we'll medevac them to Goose Bay.
The Minister Responsible of Labrador Affairs was
talking about how we were all getting together as MHAs. We were doing good; all
our Labrador MHAs: the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lake Melville
and the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, we were there with the MP, we
even used to have the premier on sometimes. We're all there talking and
discussing COVID and then we had a guest speaker from Labrador-Grenfell. Do you
know what they said the solution was because Labrador didn't have an ICU? If
somebody gets critically sick they're going to medevac them to St. Anthony or to
St. John's.
So my people are allowed to get sick, sick, sick, sick,
then they're going to medevac them. If the weather is good, we can get them out.
If it's not dark in Nain, we can get them out. We're going to medevac them to
Goose Bay. They're going to try to stabilize them in Goose Bay, which takes
time, then if they can, depending on the time of getting the actual medical
services available, we're going to medevac them on further. So do you know who's
going to die?
Time actually will result in people dying if COVID hits
the North Coast, because, in actual fact, we go back to when the roads were
being put in, the Trans-Labrador Highway to join all of Labrador, we weren't
included. Why weren't we included? Why weren't we included? We got Voisey's Bay;
we got millions of dollars we're contributing. Voisey's Bay needed that road,
but the problem was we were just six Indigenous communities, and the thing about
it is we trusted the government to help us. At the end of the day, that trust is
gone – that trust is gone. The Joey days are over in the North Coast. The Joey
days are gone. It's very, very important for people to realize that.
Now, let's talk a little bit about medical. I already
mentioned COVID. Do you know what happens in my district? I'm talking about the
budget. We had to actually fly people on a skedevac. A skedevac is when you have
to go for your cancer treatments or you're sick and you think you got cancer and
the doctor thinks you got cancer. You get on a plane on the North Coast and you
fly to Goose Bay and then you might have to fly somewhere else. That's called a
medevac.
Do you want to know something? Patients are prioritized
and the bottom of the line are people who need physio. If you had your knee
replaced or your hip replaced or you fell down and you beat up your body and you
need physio to actually get back on track so you can work, so you can have a
productive life, you're at the bottom of the barrel to get on that flight and
you normally don't get on that flight.
We have people who have eye appointments. They're the
second ones cancelled. They're the bottom of the barrel. Eye health – didn't we
learn anything? Don't we know anything about eye health? Eye health is important
for your vision, very, very important. But do you know something? You're on the
bottom of the barrel. Dental – what about dental health? Dental hygiene can be
tied to your heart conditions. It can be tied to a lot of different things.
Those three things – actually I'm going to get messages
pretty soon, I left my phone home, but these three things are low priority.
I'm going to use an example now of how hard it is to
get dental treatment on the North Coast. If I asked this question in the House
people would stand up and say a dentist does actually travel into Labrador, does
travel up to the North Coast, every so many months, but do you want to know
something? If you live in any of the communities it's very difficult to get a
dental appointment.
The Minister of Finance for the Nunatsiavut Government
was telling me when I was up in Nain, he's over a year trying to get a dental
appointment. Do you know how he got his dental appointment? He went to
Postville, our smallest community to meet with the First Minister and the
dentist was actually – he was able to get through his appointments. He didn't
have very many appointments that day and he fit the Minister of Finance in. He
said: Do you know something? I'm going to find out the next time that dentist is
travelling into Postville, I'm going to try and make an appointment, that's how
difficult it is.
You can't get an appointment in Goose Bay. Now, what
happens if the weather is bad? I already told you how difficult it is. If the
weather is bad and you have an appointment, it might be for an MRI. It might be
for – I don't know what the – it may be actually for chemo, but the problem is,
when the weather is bad your appointment is cancelled. A lot of these people
then go back on the wait-list for another three months, another four months.
It's only the chemo people that actually are moved up.
I've lost relatives. My sister-in-law passed away in
August a couple of years ago. She had a lot of problems. She was complaining,
she was misdiagnosed, misdiagnosed. In February of one year, she finally got
properly diagnosed. She had ovarian cancer, family history. How do you miss
that? That was Easter and in August we buried her.
The problem is missed appointments are unacceptable.
You guys here are panicking about COVID, oh my goodness, it's setting back our
medical appointments, our diagnoses, our treatment; people might die. Well, do
you know something? On the North Coast, people have died and people are
continuing to die. People are continuing to be undiagnosed with cancer; people
are actually being mistreated. I have to say, when you go in, it depends on
which doctor you get, too. That does make a big difference.
It's not all what I wanted to talk about, but I think I
made my point. This budget is important, but, at the end of the day, if our
problems are not addressed over the last 20, 30 years, we are having problems
and we need to be treated fairly. So when I get up there and I'm talking to you
and it sounds like I'm attacking you, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking this
government, including this side as well. Because, at the end of the day,
systemic racism is alive and well; institutional racism is alive and well. The
problem is it's able to foster because of the lack of knowledge. When people
don't impart the right knowledge, it continues to grow. What happens is six
Indigenous communities on the North Coast are getting further and further
behind.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the delay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to Estimates
again today. I have a couple of specific items that would fall under this set of
Estimates that I did want to bring up. First of all, I just want to sort of
comment on some of the points, or the general point that was being made by my
colleague from – the Leader of the NDP.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR.
LANE:
Yeah, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, there you go, when she was speaking about
the whole idea of everything being on the table and her concern for everything
being on the table. I think she was quoting the Premier when he talked about
everything was on the table.
I understand the concerns that she has, but I guess
it's all a matter of perspective and how you look at it. I would be concerned
the other way if everything wasn't on the table, because I believe that
everything does belong on the table.
When we say everything is on the table, I think you
need to clarify what that means, because we can look at everything on the table,
meaning everything is on the table subject to being cut. That's one way you
could look at it, but I just look at it from the perspective of everything being
on the table to be examined which may mean cut, may mean enhanced, may mean
status quo.
I don't have any problem with the whole concept of
putting everything on the table from the perspective of examining everything;
examining what we're doing, how we're doing it, what are the outcomes we need to
achieve, are we achieving those outcomes and is there a way we can achieve those
outcomes. If we're not achieving them, how do we. If we are, can we do it
better, can we do it faster, can we do it more efficiently and can we do it more
cost effectively. That's kind of how I look at it.
I understand, as I said here yesterday, I get it.
Everybody has needs. There are very legitimate needs. I listened to my colleague
from Torngat and very passionate about her district. I commend her for it. I
think she's a wonderful Member, by the way, I really do. She speaks very
eloquently and she speaks to the issues in her district. I have a lot of respect
for her.
Every district has needs and every district has wants,
but we have to put these conversations – once again, I just want to say it for
the record, we have to keep in the back of our minds $15-plus-billion deficit,
borrowing over $2 billion, I think $3 billion this year. We already borrowed
almost $2 billion, didn't we? Now we're going to borrow another billion. That's
$3 billion this year.
We talked about 2022 was going to be when we had a
break-even, if you will, on the budget. Now that's thrown out the window. That's
not even considering Muskrat Falls, the rate mitigation and everything
associated to that, plus all the impacts of COVID-19 and of our economy which
has tanked in many areas and the price of oil and everything else. We have to
continue to think about these things as we go through this process.
Yes, everything has to be on the table – I agree 100
per cent – for review. Hopefully, along the way we're going to improve a lot of
things. Hopefully, we're going to find better ways of doing things with better
outcomes. At the end of the day, when we're talking about services, people
require services. As long as they are receiving the services they require, how
they receive those services, how we deliver those services, that really should
be what it's about. What is it the people need versus what people want? That's
another discussion, but what is it that people absolutely need and what is the
best way to deliver on those needs, bearing in mind our fiscal capacity to deal
with these things.
I really do look forward to the report that's going to
be done by this task force. It's on economic diversification but it's also on
looking at the fiscal situation. I hope it's more successful – I have to throw
this in here – than LEAP, because I never heard anything about that after and so
on. We've seen these things. We've heard about the Cabinet Committee on Jobs. I
don't recall seeing any results or reports coming there. I am looking forward to
this particular report to see what becomes of it.
I'm sure there are going to be things that are going to
challenge every Member in this House. I'm sure there are. I'm hopeful there are
going to be some really good suggestions as well, but I'm sure there are going
to be controversial ones as well. I just hope that everybody collectively is
willing to go down the road of trying to right this ship. It's not going to be
easy and it's not going to popular in all quarters. There's going to be some
pain that's going to have to be shared across the province, in every district,
including mine. I think we all need to get our heads around that.
Anyway, under this particular heading, one of the
things that falls under this is Public Procurement Agency. I want to take a few
minutes just to talk about that because I can remember when we had the new
Public Procurement Act, which was
brought into the House of Assembly, I don't know, three years ago maybe. I'm
just guessing, around two, three years ago.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
LANE:
2017, there you go. I'm told it's 2017, so that's not bad. That's when it was
brought in.
I can remember at the time we were all in support of a
new Public Procurement Act. It was
passed unanimously. I also remember at the time the concern that I think Members
on the Opposition side – I think we all shared these. It wasn't just me, but it
was the NDP and it was the PC Members as well. We had concerns over the fact
that it was so broad brushed. It was such a broad piece of legislation and it
was severely lacking in details. Of course, all the details would be dealt with
in the regulations.
Now, that's not something this government did that's
any different, I suppose, than other governments have done in the past. Again,
we talk about how things have always been done, and I talked about that when I
brought up the issue around us examining agencies, boards and commissions. We
don't do it because we never have. It's not the way it's done. I'm saying, it
should be the way it's done. We should consider doing it differently.
Well, when you look at this piece of legislation – this
was a very, very significant piece of legislation. Again, you put it in context,
this piece of legislation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you look at this piece of legislation, the
Public Procurement Act, this was
legislation and is legislation that governs the expenditure of billions of
dollars – literally, billions of dollars.
In the same context, when we think about we're
scrutinizing the budget and how come you spent a few hundred dollars extra on
office supplies, and it's all good to ask these questions, but just think about
it. It's a piece of legislation that governs the expenditure of billions of
taxpayers' dollars through public procurement and so on. At the time, the
concern we had was that everything was left to the regulations. As Members of
this House would know, the public may not be up on it – I certainly wasn't up on
it until I became a Member of this House – but the regulations are put in place
by the minister and I guess approved by the Cabinet before it happens.
We approve the general policy, the act, the general
piece of legislation, but all the details of how it would work are left to the
minister and the government to put in whatever they want. There's no
consultation at that point with any other Members of the House of Assembly.
There's no review by us. At some point in time the regulations just come to be.
No one notifies us: the new regulations are out, have a look at them. That
doesn't happen. At some point in time you go and you look it up maybe and you
say, look we have new regulations. It has been done.
In the case of the
Public Procurement Act, there were no
details. I know some of the issues that were raised – and I know I raised it and
I know other Members did – was the idea about trying to create more
opportunities for local business and local entrepreneurs to be able to bid on
and hopefully receive contracts, or if there were opportunities for
sole-sourcing and so on that we would have sort of a local-first kind of policy.
It was something that we asked in the act at the time.
The government said no, that would be left to the regulations. That's certainly
something that we're going to be – that's an important issue and so on.
Now, I don't think it's been addressed in the
regulations based on – and I don't have the regulations in front of me,
admittedly, but talking to different people in the business community and people
in my district and Donovans and other areas, there's definitely a sense that
there's no local preference policy that's there or is being really adhered to.
Now, I would give credit to the former minister of
Finance, before he became Minister of Education, he made an announcement where
he made some changes to the regulations and it raised the cap, I believe. It was
raising the cap for which you did not require a tender. So, in other words,
there was more opportunity for smaller purchases and so on where you could do
the three-quote thing or even sole-sourced stuff that could give more
flexibility for local business to get the contract or for us to buy products
from them and so on.
That was a good thing, I'm not knocking that and I
applauded him for it at the time. I believe I called in to
Open Line and publicly acknowledged it and congratulated the
government on doing it, because if they do good things then I have no problem
saying they're doing good things. The opposite is true as well.
Some of the other things that aren't being done that
really need to be done, as far as I'm concerned, is, I know there's an issue,
for example, when we talk about contracts and workers coming from the outside
and so on. So we need to make sure we button this up to try to get these local
benefits agreements in contracts and so on, on the large projects.
I've also heard from contractors who would say, well,
the government puts in a great big giant bid package on something and we're not
big enough to bid on it. It's just too big for us. If they broke it down into
sections, then we could bid on part of it. So if you had a facility and so on,
break it down into component parts so that the smaller companies could bid on
some of those component parts.
Now, someone is going to say, well, if we do that it
might cost us a bit more money. It's cheaper on the government and on the
taxpayer to get it all put together into one. Just like they're saying it's
cheaper on the government when we do these buying groups, that we buy stuff as
the Atlantic provinces, we purchase something together. By putting our
purchasing power together, we're going to save some money on purchases by having
all the Atlantic provinces buy a particular product and us to be a part of it.
I understand that it could save some money. I'm not
arguing that, but I really believe that there has to be an analysis done to look
at this stuff because, yeah, you might save some money on a tender, you might
save some money on a contract, you might save some money on a purchase, but are
you factoring in what the value is when a local company gets that work?
When you look at the people that are being hired, these
are employing our own local people. Those local people are spending their
paycheques in our own economy. The owners of those local companies are buying
their supplies locally. They're spending their profits in our own province and
they're being taxed in our own province, as opposed to seeing the taxes and the
salaries and everything else going to the Mainland and benefiting some other
province's economy. There's a real financial benefit to that that I don't think
is being factored into these decisions.
If we can put in policies to stop this bundling, at
least consider stopping bundling, where it makes sense, and breaking down
projects into smaller component parts, where it makes sense, to give local
companies an advantage to get the work and keep the money in Newfoundland and
employ our own and pay taxes in our own province, then I think that's something
that needs to be done. I encourage the government to do it.
I would also say when it comes to small items, sole
sourcing, like one of my colleagues pointed out this hand sanitizer. I noticed
this the other day myself, actually, I was going to bring it up and I didn't.
Anyway, I can't even read where it's from here now, but I know it's not from
Newfoundland.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
China.
MR.
LANE:
China, is it? Okay. It's from China, okay.
Now, the point is that we got a local company, it was
in the news. I think it's the distillery place in Bay Roberts area. Is that who
it was?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
The
government is making it now.
MR.
LANE:
Well, I know the NLC is making it. Yes, the government is making it. I know
that. But in addition to that there was a place, I think it was the one out in
Bay Roberts area, the distillery, spirits place, they made rum and stuff, and
they were making hand sanitizer, as an example.
This probably might not be part of a tender, but we
need to get the mindset in the government employees. Every government employee
who's going to purchase anything from a pencil to a coffee, whatever it's going
to be, buy it off the local guy. That should be first and foremost. Don't even
think about buying sanitizer from Walmart that came from China when we have a
local company that's making hand sanitizer.
If it costs an extra few cents more, who cares? It's
keeping a company open; it's keeping people employed. They're spending the money
in Newfoundland and they're spending their taxes here. The guy who owns Walmart
is a billionaire down in the States, Walton family or whatever they are. What
are we supporting them for? I can't believe it when you think about it. We're
supporting this crowd.
If we need sandwiches or something, go to the local
deli. Don't go to Costco somewhere buying sandwich trays. Buy it from the local.
It might seem small and maybe frivolous, but it all adds up and it's all
employing local Newfoundlanders. It's keeping money in our own province.
I can guarantee you, you're not going to get anything
down to Costco that's any better than what they make down to the Georgestown
Bakery. I can guarantee you that. If you're having your meetings with your
coffee and your bagels and whatever; fantastic stuff. Support local.
There was a movement made by the former minister, now
Minister of Education – as I said in the beginning – who made some changes, but
I think more needs to be done under the Procurement Act to support local.
I only have a couple of minutes left, but under the
Transportation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
LANE:
I know you're disappointed.
Under Transportation and Infrastructure, I don't have a
lot to do with that department, quite frankly, because of the district I
represent. I have six ramps, basically, an in ramp and an out ramp in Mount
Pearl and Southlands. That's it. So the only issues I have generally are if
there's a pothole in the ramp or the ramp isn't cleared or something like that.
Sometimes people will call me about Pitts Memorial and Team Gushue because
people in my district are using those roads and so on. If there's a pothole,
they'll call about that, too.
I don't have a lot and I don't ask much of that
department, but I will say that from an infrastructure point of view – and I'm
not asking for money now because given where we are, financially, again, I can't
go asking for pie in the sky at this stage in the game. But there is going to be
some federal stimulus money, I believe, that's going to have to come at some
point in time that's going to be looking for shovel-ready projects, so I will
put in a plug here. There are a couple of roads and pieces of infrastructure I
will put a plug in for in my area. I'm not making apologies for that. It's what
I'm here for.
Team Gushue Highway needs to be finished. We were told
before, it was just delayed a year because there was an issue with the
agricultural land and so on. I went to Estimates and I found out, no, b'y,
that's not really the case. There is no money. The money had ran out. The
federal program – the pot is empty and there is no new pot. We need that federal
money to get that finished.
That doesn't just impact my district, it impacts –
actually, the Member from the Southern Shore, Ferryland, I'd say 60 to 70 per
cent of what's going down that road, that's where they're headed, out that way.
That needs to be done.
The other one, of course, which I'm glad is on the
radar, and it's not an immediate need because Galway has slowed down, but we do
need that overpass or underpass there by the Irving on the TCH to get people
into and out of Galway, people that are heading west. Right now, if you're in
the east end and you want to go to Costco, you have to go all the way to Paddys
Pond and go over the overpass and come back the other way, or you have to go
through Mount Pearl and Southlands. They need to have that piece of
infrastructure in place. I certainly hope when there's a shovel-ready project,
that's on the list as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think we have about five or six minutes left to speak
to the Government Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to represent the
District of Placentia - St. Mary's and speak here today. I've been sitting in
this House now for almost five years. I've sat in the front row, I've sat in the
middle row and now I'm up here in the back row and I'm sure the –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, the door. That's right, I sat over here too.
I'm sure the Member for Ferryland can agree with me,
without a doubt, this is the best seat in the House. The reason why it's the
best seat is because you sit up here and you get to watch everything that goes
on in the House of Assembly, you get to hear everything that goes on in the
House of Assembly and you really get to think up here in this seat. When I
worked as a nurse I used to use my time commuting back and forth to think. Now I
use my time up here in this seat to think.
I'm listening to the Members opposite, I'm listening to
my colleagues and the independent Member and I'm thinking to myself – I just
turned to the Member here to the right – and I said to myself, you know what,
it's not all doom and gloom in this province, people. It really, truly is not. I
understand we do have difficulty, there are some problems, but it is not all
doom and gloom. There are a lot of positive things, and this government has done
a lot of positive things in five years. A lot has been accomplished just this
year, despite the challenges that all of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
facing and have faced.
We are lucky to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have a daughter who lives in Louisiana. She was out of her house 12 times
since March. That's it. We can come and go about with our masks on and we
practice the COVID principles and safety. We're pretty safe here in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We have to thank our team who has kept us safe also. We're lucky
to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador and it is not all doom and gloom.
Our public sector workers have worked really hard. They
work hard every day to positively impact the lives of our residents. For
example, from November of 2017 to March of 2020, I saw first-hand how hard a
very small group of public sector workers in Service NL, which is now Digital
Government and Service NL, and WorkplaceNL helped me take 23 pieces of
legislation through this House of Assembly.
The hours of work that go into a piece of legislation
is no easy task and it is often underestimated. It's not that simple when you
say put a piece of legislation through the House. I know building accessibility,
for example, we've been working on that one for three or four years. It's
difficult, and some of this legislation is thick. It's a lot of pages, it's a
lot of legislation.
Public safety has been a top priority for this
government and, as such, the Highway
Traffic Act is constantly open in this House of Assembly. It's open because
we need to review it and to improve and enhance the safety of our residents here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know we work daily with stakeholders. This
government does work with the public. We work with people who have first-hand
experience out in the community. Day in, day out we are working with the public.
For example, our RCMP and our RNC officers helped us put some of that
legislation with the Highway Traffic Act
through this House of Assembly. We used their expertise to bring it forward,
Mr. Speaker.
The enhancements to the
Highway Traffic Act align with numerous changes, and they have been
modified over the last several years. I'm going to list a few, just to remind
everybody in this House what we've been doing: increased fines and tougher
penalties for a number of offences such as impaired driving; amendments
regarding excessive speeding, street racing, stunting and move over provisions;
a new offence for driving without due care and attention; and the introduction
of a one-metre rule for cyclists and pedestrians. We've done that in this House
of Assembly.
One group that's very near and dear to my heart, and
they are from my district, is the STAND for Hannah foundation. Hannah's friends
and family started the STAND for Hannah foundation, an acronym for Standing
Together Against Negligent Driving. The group's aim is to educate the public on
the dangers of reckless driving and lobby for legislative changes. They have
successfully done that.
On July 7, 2016, Hannah Thorne, who was 18 years old at
the time, was killed when a driver involved in a street race slammed into her
vehicle and into her grandmother's car. Her grandmother was hospitalized. I know
Hannah's mom and dad personally, Gail and Levi Thorne, and the changes that we
brought forward in this House of Assembly, that this government brought forward
to enhance road safety, means a significant amount to that family and to many
other families in this province who have been affected by negligent driving.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Member's time has expired.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that the report of the Government
Services Committee be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates
Committee, carried.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
that this House do now recess until 6:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that this House does now recess until 6:30 p.m.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
October
27, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 58A
The House resumed at 6:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Are
the House Leaders ready?
Third Party House Leader ready?
The independents ready?
Order, please!
The Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Motion 1.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've received a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
rise.
The message from Her Honour:
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 2021, by way of further Supply, and in
accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend
these Estimates to the House of Assembly.
Sgd.:_______________________
Judy Foote, PC, ONL
Lieutenant-Governor
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
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, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering the resolution, the main Supply
bill, Bill 42.
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, 2021 the sum of $1,559,733,200.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, resolution carried.
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, 2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The
Public Service.” (Bill 42)
CLERK (Barnes):
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 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, 2021 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.
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, 2021 And
For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, long title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the resolution and Bill 42 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Madam Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that the total
contained in the Estimates in the amount of $7,402,809,500 for the 2020-2021
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, the amount, for this fiscal
year be carried and that the Committee report that they have adopted a
resolution and a bill consequent thereto.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, 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
contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2020-2021 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 have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed her to report that the Committee
has adopted a certain resolution recommending that a bill be introduced to give
effect to the same.
When shall the report be received?
MS.
COADY:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and
Community Services, that the resolution be now read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the resolution now be read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
“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, 2021 the sum of $1,559,733,200.”
On motion, resolution read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that
the resolution be now read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the resolution now be read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
“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, 2021 the sum of $1,559,733,200.”
On motion, resolution read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, for leave to introduce
a Supply bill, Bill 42, 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 shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of
Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial
Year Ending March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public
Service, Bill 42, the Supply bill, and that the bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the
Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supply bill, Bill 42, and
that the said bill now be read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Finance to
introduce a bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending
March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” carried.
(Bill 42)
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,
2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 42)
On motion, Bill 42 read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry
and Agriculture, 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 this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying
Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31,
2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 42)
On motion, Bill 42 read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy
and Technology, that the Supply bill be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the Supply bill now be read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR.
SPEAKER:
Are
the House Leaders ready?
The Government House Leader ready?
Is the Opposition House Leader ready?
Is the Third Party ready?
Are the independents ready?
All those in favour?
CLERK:
Mr.
Furey, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Davis,
Mr. Bennett, Ms. Coady, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Warr,
Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Trimper, Ms. Haley, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr.
Brazil, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Mr. Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr.
Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Tibbs, Mr. O'Driscoll, Ms.
Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lane.
Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 33; the nays: zero.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Sorry, we revert to the bill.
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,
2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 42)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty
Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For
The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2021 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 42)
We got ahead of ourselves there a bit. Back to the
Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Indigenous Affairs
and Reconciliation, that the House resolve into a Committee of the Whole on Ways
and Means to consider certain resolutions and a bill relating to the raising of
loans by the province, Bill 47.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of Ways and Means.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Pardy):
Order, please!
Firstly, it's an honour and a privilege to sit in this
Chair and to chair this session this evening. I thank you in advance for your
co-operation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
We
are now debating An Act To Amend The Loan Act, 2020, Bill 47.
Resolution
“Be it resolved
by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:
“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to
authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the
province, in addition to the sum of money already voted, a sum of money not
exceeding $1,000,000,000.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
I recognize the Deputy Premier.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and very happy to see you sitting in that Chair
and overseeing these proceedings this evening. I'm glad to have you at the helm
this evening.
The Loan Act is a regular piece of legislation. As
Members know, we've just passed the budget. This is a piece of that budget and
the requirements of borrowing. It gives government authority to borrow in any
given year. Members will remember that we brought forward loan acts every year
between 2014 and 2020, with the exception of 2017, when we had sufficient
authority remaining from our 2016 bill.
In March, Members will remember the beginning of the
pandemic when we introduced a Loan Act that provided borrowing authority for $2
billion during the emergency session of the House of Assembly. To date, we've
borrowed the full $2 billion as we dealt with the financial pressures from
COVID-19. Today, we're bringing forward amendments to increase the borrowing
authority from that bill to $3 billion – an additional $1 billion. This is the
number that we identified on budget day. It was contained within the budget and
I mentioned it in the Budget Speech.
This is actually $200 million lower than we had
projected in July, when the former minister of Finance brought forward the
fiscal update, and I thank him for his efforts in bringing that information
forward and keeping us all informed. This is $200 million lower than we had
projected in July and that's as a result of some increased revenues. We saw a
small increase in oil and gas, in particular, but in revenues overall.
Now, I don't want to minimize the amount that we're
borrowing, this is a significant amount of money. We recognize how high it is,
it's just that it's not the highest we've ever had to borrow in this province,
Mr. Chair. That distinction goes to a previous administration.
We had originally projected $1.2 in borrowing in
Budget 2019, but, of course, that was
pre-pandemic and pre-COVID. We've had to borrow this year, due to COVID
challenges, and, in recent years, to overcome really the growth that we
inherited in terms of the spending requirements of government.
Now, this borrowing that is taking place will allow us
to fund our responsive initiatives during the pandemic such as: the essential
worker program that's been discussed in this House, the Tourism and Hospitality
Support, the small business COVID support and even funding for Chromebooks for
schools, Mr. Chair, just to name a few.
Mr. Chair, I will say that we do have cash flow for the
province. We'll be borrowing this additional billion dollars in tranches right
up until the end of the fiscal year. Normally, there are between $200 million
and $300 million tranches and we'll be watching the markets and really
exercising Treasury management to ensure that we're doing everything possible to
keep our costs as low as possible.
I'm bringing it forward, I know that the Members of the
House have supported the budget; therefore, they support this bill so I won't
belabour the point.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the members of the Finance
team and the members that monitor and do the borrowing and ensure we have
effective Treasury management. We'll make sure that we're doing everything
possible to keep the rates as low as possible to allow us to borrow effectively.
I know that when I had meetings and discussions with the bond rating agencies,
Mr. Chair, they actually gave kudos to the Department of Finance for their
ability to place funds effectively on the markets and recognize that we are very
prudent and efficient at doing so.
I want to thank those officials – some of whom may be
watching this evening – for their hard work and extra efforts, especially during
COVID. I know that the Department of Finance has been very active and very
challenged during the whole period and I want to recognize them for those
efforts.
I'll pause there, Mr. Chair, to allow for other
interventions or any questions that there may be, but understanding, of course,
that there has been support for this already.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must say as well that I'm very pleased to see you as
Chair, assisting us here tonight, and we're very, very pleased and honoured to
see you where you are.
First of all, as the Minister of Finance has stated, we
are in support of the budget. We also are, therefore, in support of this bill.
I'm just very pleased, Mr. Chair, to have this
opportunity this evening to speak and thank, first of all, the people who have
elected me to be here in this seat, the people of Harbour Main. I want to say
that being an MHA is indeed a great honour. I consider it to be one of the
highest honours I have ever had bestowed upon me.
I must say also that in addition to it being a great
honour, it comes with great responsibility. That's something that in my short
time as MHA, approximately 17 months, I can say that the significance of the
role of MHA has really been brought home to me with respect to the district and
the needs that exist in the district that I represent.
This evening I would like an opportunity to speak about
several issues that impact the District of Harbour Main. We have some very
significant concerns that arise on a day-to-day basis in our communities and in
our towns. I'll see if I can get through as many as possible.
I would like to concentrate, first of all, on the first
which is, of course, jobs. Specifically, the many, many constituents in the
District of Harbour Mina who are out of work; the tradespeople who were working
in the district and the impact that this lack of work has had on them.
I also will speak about seniors; another very important
issue and concern that are facing seniors, especially during this COVID
pandemic. I have many cases of constituents who are low-income seniors who have
reached out to me over the past number of weeks and I wish to relay some of the
concerns that I've been hearing from our seniors.
As well, I am critic for the Status of Women. I think
it's important to highlight some of the women's issues. In particular, issues
that are facing women in relation to COVID and the pandemic. I think that's
something I'll also speak about.
As well, of course, a big issue in Harbour Main
District goes back to roads. I have raised this issue numerous times in the
House since I have been elected, specifically regarding the deplorable
conditions of the roads in the district. I do want to highlight and emphasize
that as well. Brush cutting – as you are aware, I raised this petition earlier
today and I will speak to that again as this is an important issue.
Finally, the issue of mental health. The mental health
and wellness of our constituents in Harbour Main, especially in relation to
COVID-19.
Mr. Chair, first of all, speaking about the
tradespeople in my district, I think I need to first of all highlight the
situation as it exists in the trades industry. Since the budget was brought down
on September 30, there have been layoffs at Husky, at Suncor's Terra Nova, at
the Come By Chance Refinery, Transocean, as well, various other areas in the
airlines, numerous engineering firms and small businesses.
Mr. Chair, when I look at what the impact of these job
losses are for people who are in the District of Harbour Main – and not only for
people in the District of Harbour Main but other areas that are impacted by the
lack of jobs and the layoffs – we really cannot understate the importance of
this. When I look at, for example, the Terra Nova FPSO, I am troubled to see the
situation as it has unfolded with the FPSO. When looking at that particular
aspect of our oil industry, Mr. Chair, I would say that we need to have more of
a plan of action as far as this area is concerned.
I look at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who should
be working on the maintenance and the refit of the Terra Nova FPSO. We have the
tradespeople in our province, Mr. Chair, who are capable of doing much of the
work, but what are they doing? They're sitting at home waiting for that call
that never comes. I've had calls from so many of my constituents I have a book
here. This book is filled with people in my district who have been reaching out
and who have nowhere to go in terms of work.
One individual I spoke to just recently said he's been
applying for jobs since April. The only response he gets is we've received your
résumé but that's it. Mr. Chair, he doesn't know what he's going to do. Do you
know what he says to me? That's the most stressful thing of all, beyond the fact
that he doesn't have work and he doesn't know how he's going to pay the bills.
The most stressful and worrisome thing for him is the unknown. It's the unknown,
the day to day, getting up every morning and not knowing what's going to happen
next.
He also said to me, Mr. Chair, he's getting no
information from anyone. He feels forgotten and abandoned and he is stressed to
the max. He doesn't understand why this is happening. He says we are so rich in
resources here in our province. We have so much. How did we get here?
Now, when we listen to the government they'll say it's
because of COVID. That's it. We all recognize that COVID is a factor. No one
denies that. I agree and I recognize, as well as any reasonable-minded person,
that COVID is an important piece of this problem. It has affected the world; it
has affected our world's economy. There is responsibility there but, Mr. Chair,
it is not entirely – it cannot be blamed on COVID. All reasonable people know
that. They see through that. When government says this is a global pandemic and
it's global crisis, there's more to it than that and we all know that. We know
that government cannot absolve themselves of responsibility.
I've been asked by the Minister of Energy in the past
when I've raised questions on this in House: What's your plan? First of all, I'm
not in government. We're not in government yet, but, for example, with the Terra
Nova FPSO we believe in the people of this province and in the workers. We have
the best workers. In terms of the tradespeople, we have the best workers in the
world here in our province. There's no doubt about that. We all recognize that
we do – both sides of the House. We have richness in our resources but our
tradespeople are capable of doing this work. Our tradespeople should be the ones
hired to do the work on the Terra Nova FPSO.
What should we do then? I would suggest that Suncor
require to start this refit and find a way to make it happen, to find a way to
make tradespeople happen. I am of the belief that where there is a will there is
a way. We have to take leadership though. It requires strong and assertive
advocacy. There can be no accepting defeat. We cannot. We have to believe in
this; we have to believe in our people. That might all sound like very general
and very lack of being concrete, I guess, but really it comes down to that, Mr.
Chair.
In times of economic crisis – and we are in this crisis
– it is important to tell the people that we're not just talking about dreams
here. We have to tell them exactly how we plan to get them where we need to go,
especially in this time of crisis. How we do this is with strong leadership. If
it means we go to Ottawa and if it means we fight, we fight.
Yes, I'm all about collaboration. I am a
consensus-building person, but there are times when we have to take a stand for
the people that we represent, and this is one of them. Mr. Chair, the issues
with respect to tradespeople in our province are serious. We need to take this
as a priority in terms of – task forces are great. I hear a lot about task
forces, a lot about studies, but this is the time for action.
One other point I wanted to get to – and I see my
ambitious list of things I wanted to talk to, but I will obviously get an
opportunity again. I want to speak about Come By Chance. Come By Chance affects
so many of our workers. We have the MHA for Placentia West - Bellevue and the
MHA for Terra Nova. They represent two districts which are impacted by the
devastating news of the refinery closure. My District of Harbour Main as well.
We have asked questions in the House and we continue to
ask questions and to demand action on this issue. The Come By Chance Refinery is
not only important though to us, to our three districts; it's important to the
entire province. The refinery produces fuels like propane and jet fuel, which
are used in this province. They are producing the fuel that Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro turns into electricity, which we all use. We know that this will
impact all of us.
The workers at the refinery live in the District of
Terra Nova, live in, for example, Clarenville. They live in many communities in
Conception Bay and in the surrounding area. These workers shop in the
communities; they eat in establishments, in the restaurants. They support our
local economy. If this refinery closes permanently, the impacts will be felt
throughout the entire province. Mr. Chair, those are very serious concerns that
we see in the District of Harbour Main. I hear it a lot.
When we had the oil and gas rally outside Confederation
Building – I'll close on this note – I spoke to two women: one who had lost her
job on West White Rose and the other who was fearing that her job was in
jeopardy. I could feel the concern, the worry. They were worried to death about
their futures, whether they were going to have to leave the province. We have to
have implemented community benefit agreements that can be non-negotiable; we
have to as a first strong step. There are many other initiatives which we have
to work on to arrive at some solutions and some answers for the people who are
out there struggling with the unknown, with the difficulties affecting them as
far as mental health issues and the lack of supports that are there.
Mr. Chair, on that note I will close. I thank you very
much for your attention and your consideration.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to have the opportunity here to speak to this
bill. Of course, this is a money bill so we'll be speaking in 10-minute
intervals on anything we wish, so I have lots to talk about tonight. The first
thing, Mr. Chair, I wanted to speak about – and the Minister of Finance did
mention this, actually, when she spoke. She brought up the topic of the
Essential Worker program. I'm glad she did because it kind of just set off a
little bell. It wasn't something I had planned on talking about tonight. It was
something I had absolutely planned on bringing up but it had kind of slipped my
mind for a moment.
First of all, I just want to say that I certainly
applaud the federal government, obviously, for providing the funds to assist
essential workers. We know we have an Essential Worker program. It was funded by
the feds but developed by the provincial governments. They had to submit a plan,
I believe, to the federal government as to how they would spend the money. If it
was approved by the federal government, then they could implement the program,
which was supposed to be for essential workers.
I do understand there are some provinces, so I'm told,
that actually recognized front-line health care workers and so on and nurses and
things like that. I know there were some nurses here in this province, a couple
I heard from, and other people in health care that were disappointed that they
were right on the front lines and they felt that they should have benefited from
this in recognition of these extraordinary times. But the provincial government
decided, no, they're going to put the money into front-line workers who would be
considered low-income workers.
I certainly agree with them doing that, and that's not
to say that health care workers and so on don't deserve our thanks and so on,
because they absolutely do. But with a limited pot of money, based on, I guess,
our population and so on, there's only so much money. It was decided to put it
to people who would have worked in grocery stores and maybe home care workers
and people that generally make minimum wage or low wages and to recognize them
during this pandemic, the important role that they played, placing themselves at
greater risk and their families at greater risk in providing essential services
that we all needed during a pandemic.
So it was a good program and it is a good program, but
one of the things that I learned – and I had heard from a number of people and
employers – first of all, there had been some glitches, I believe, with the
employer end because they ran into some problems with the software and so on. It
was not compatible to a lot of computers that employers would have so I know
there were problems there. To the government's credit, they did straighten that
out as far as I know. That was a good thing, a positive thing. I commend the
government for that.
I know there are also a number of employees who have
fallen through the cracks in this program. I understand there has been a line
drawn in the sand for every program. What the government said is if you make
$3,000 per month gross or less you qualify. Obviously, if you're someone who
made more than that, particularly if you made just over that, you're going to be
disappointed. There are going to be some people who made just under and just got
in on time and they're going to be happy, obviously.
Wherever you draw the line there'll be winners and
losers, but there are some problems with the program. The first problem, which
came to my attention, was that there were a number of employers who did not
apply for the program. The workers couldn't apply for this program; the
employers had to apply for it on behalf of their employees.
Unfortunately, there were a number of employers in this
province for whatever reason did not apply. Some might argue they were so busy
trying to keep their own businesses afloat and everything else that it just sort
of went over their heads, they didn't hear about it, didn't realize and so on.
There could be some of that. I've been told by some people that they brought it
to the attention of their employers and their employers basically didn't care
and said I have more important things to do than worry about this. Too bad for
you, basically, which is absolutely disgraceful in my mind that you would treat
your employees that way, but apparently that has happened in some cases which is
very, very disappointing.
To the government's credit, I did reach out to the
department and the minister. To the minister's credit and the government's
credit they have been working with these people and making sure they get paid on
an individual basis. I've sent a number of my constituents that way through to
the department where their employer didn't apply and they have worked with that
person to ensure they receive the benefit. I thank the minister and the
department for that. That's a good thing. It's a positive thing.
Where we still have issues that haven't been addressed,
unfortunately, is that we have some employees – I'm going to give a couple of
examples now. Maybe other Members have heard of this because you've heard from
people in your own districts. I'm not sure, but I've certainly heard from a
number.
I had a home care agency in my area who reached out and
said: Paul, during the time when COVID-19 first came on, I had a number of home
care workers who said I'm not going to work, either because they were
immunocompromised, they had family members who were immunocompromised or perhaps
they were just scared to death, like a lot of people were at first. Just afraid
to go to work, afraid they were going to catch COVID and bring it home to their
families and so on.
The problem is that the clients, many of them seniors
and people with disabilities still needed care. What happened was in this case
this particular employer said: What I did is I had some workers who weren't
afraid and never had any health issues. They wanted to go to work and were
willing to go to work. I asked them: Can you do me a solid favour and work a few
extra shifts because I have nobody to take care of Ms. Jones today because your
co-worker is not coming into work?
Because that person, that worker, stepped up to the
plate and worked a few hours overtime, even though their normal remuneration
would clearly put them under that threshold of $3,000 – because they worked a
few extra hours to help their employer out of a bind, now they don't qualify.
They were actually punished and got zero remuneration in this program because
they stepped up to the plate to try to help their employer.
I had another family who reached out, and like a lot of
families when COVID hit it impacted them financially. Her spouse had been laid
off. They were going to apply for the CERB but they were waiting on that.
Anyway, through the jigs and the reels, like a lot of people, they had financial
issues. She went to her employer and she had a bunch of leave banked where she
had worked in the past, say, over the last year. Maybe it was some banked leave.
She went and she said: Listen, can I cash in my leave
as a one-time payment, like a one-time cheque so I can get a few extra dollars
here, because I have no money and my husband is still up in arms. He got laid
off; he's not working. We're applying for CERB and we're in financial trouble.
The employer said, sure, no problem; paid them out their bit of leave, a
one-time cheque. As a result of that, when they went to apply for the program:
you're over the $3,000 threshold; you don't qualify, even though under normal
circumstances they would qualify based on their income.
This is a problem. We have a number of low-income
essential workers who did step up to the plate, worked in these jobs when we
needed them the most, had a program that was supposed to look after them, but
because of circumstances like this, they've fallen through the cracks.
I don't think it's impossible to fix. I don't know why
the government simply can't go back to the employer and say: If their normal
salary puts them under that threshold, then one-time payouts, in terms of cash
outs or a bit of overtime or something, should not be included in the
calculation. They should just look at what's the normal salary and pay them.
I know I brought this up to the department again since.
They said: No, sorry we're not changing it. But I'm going to raise it here
again. It's not too late. The minister is here, he's listening. I'm hoping that
he's going to go back and revisit this so that we can look after the people.
These are exactly the type of people that the program
was intended for. We should not have these situations where they're falling
through the cracks on some of these technicalities, especially if they can be
addressed and this one can be addressed. I ask the minister to please consider
changing that for these essential workers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the Chair. It's great to see you in the
Chair.
I'm going to follow up on what the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands has been talking about. As he said, here we are discussing a
billion-dollar expenditure for the province. We can get into that later, but I
had a lot of calls also from essential workers. As one Member mentioned: It's
federal funds but is administered by the province.
We understand there's a criteria, but I've been
contacted by several people. I'm going to ask the minister if they can give this
person a call later to see what can be done. I understand the criteria needs to
be set out, but when we're discussing a billion-dollar spend here and some of
the essential workers who put their health on the line for all of us across the
province, who stood up for us, who went to work for us to make sure that we were
fed, making sure that we were still staying healthy, working in the grocery
stores, working in the hospitals and working in long-term care.
There are two cases that I want to bring up – I'm going
to ask the minister later if they can get someone from the staff just to call
him and see if there's any way to work around – one was $10 over and the other
one was $20 over. That's what they were over on their gross salary.
I understand the criteria. I understand criteria, but
when you get someone who is an essential worker who is out working and they may
work an extra hour because someone couldn't make it in because they had to take
care of their mother, take care of their father, something like that and you're
$10 over. We have to try to make some leeway. I understand. I know my colleague,
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, said it great, we do have to have some
kind of criteria, we have to have criteria and I understand that, but,
hopefully, within that criteria there's flexibility.
I'm going to be asking the minister to call his person,
who I've been dealing with, to look at this and see if there's anything that we
can do because we all understand the work that the essential workers did.
Another group through all this was the volunteer
firefighters across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what they did in
a lot of situations and unknowing times for us all. A lot of them kept up their
duties and their volunteer work for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
and for the people.
There are several cases that I had on the essential
workers. I know that there was sometimes that we had to go back to the people,
the workers themselves and say: Well, you have to get your employer to actually
apply. In some cases, the employer never did apply. We eventually wrote the
employer and said: Look, we're getting calls here. Here's how you apply. In many
cases, they did apply. It took time to encourage them to send in the application
but they did apply and people got their pay. There are others that missed the
deadline that you work on to try to help out.
It is always that to and fro when you're the MHA. I'm
sure we're not the only two here that was working on that for our constituents.
I'm sure most people here were working on that in the House for their
constituents. When you get the essential employees say: Well, we never got no
funds. Well, did your employer apply? Well, we don't know. You're caught in the
middle. They don't want to go and upset their employer because they don't want
to have ill feelings with the employer, but they feel that they were essential.
The money is there and it's easy for them then to take the money and pass it on
to the employees.
You get caught in the middle but it's worth it because
those essential employees, a lot of them had the extra expenses themselves. For
example, how many times did we hear in this House where people had to find other
accommodations for their children? A lot of times the parents were home and they
didn't need the extra accommodations, but a lot of those essential employees had
to continue on with their normal life because they were deemed essential.
I'll repeat myself: I understand that we need criteria,
but I also understand that we need a bit of flexibility. If you're talking about
$5,000 or $6,000 over, I can understand it. To be fair, I want to make it quite
clear that this is the first time that I'm bringing this up to the minister
because I only got it earlier; this is the first time. I told the person I was
coming in the House and I never had time to bring it up to the minister. I want
to make that quite clear, that was never ever brought up to the minister, saying
no to it.
What I will do is ask this person to write me an email
with their phone number. I will pass it on to the minister and I will ask the
minister to ask someone from her office to contact and then see what they can
work out. This is by no means being critical of the program, by no means being
critical of the minister. This is something that was brought to my attention
that I have to be walking into this House now to speak about, and something that
I said I would bring up and that I would ask the minister.
The essential program was a great program. It did help
a lot of people because there were a lot of expenses and a lot of other needs
that they needed through this pandemic. I'm sure there's not a person in this
House of Assembly that wouldn't pay tribute to them all. I know a lot of them
personally and I'm sure everybody here does. When we were staying home, a lot of
them were out on the front lines making sure that we're all staying safe. I just
wanted to take my hat off to all of the essential workers in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm hoping that we can – the few issues that myself and
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands have brought up here, that we can try to
find some solution to. I know on several occasions when we sent information to
the minister's office, we got a quick response and got a great response from the
department working on the Essential Workers Support Program.
I just want to make that up front and thank the
minister's office and the staff for that because on many occasions, as I
mentioned earlier, we were caught in the middle of it trying to make sure the
application is put in. We had a great response from the minister's office and
together that all helped out a lot of employees. I know our way out in the
Humber - Bay of Islands and the Corner Brook area that we solved a lot of issues
for the essential employees. Again, what I'll do is I'm going to ask this person
to write me an email with their phone number and I'll pass it on the minister,
or forward to the minister and ask the minister's office to contact them and
hopefully we can work that out.
I'll just leave that there right now. I'll have another
chance to speak on the actual billion dollars later. I just want to thank you
for your indulgence. I, again, reiterate what I said earlier. This is not a
concern that I had; this was brought to my attention because we have a great
working relationship with the minister and the staff with the essential employee
program throughout this whole pandemic. I have to recognize that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be looking at you in the chair itself, as
opposed to having you behind me.
I want to start out this evening, similar to a lot of
my colleagues here in the House, by thanking the people of the District of
Stephenville - Port au Port for giving me the honour and privilege to represent
them here in the House. It's something that I don't take for granted. I try to
work hard every day to improve their lives and I think that's exactly what
everybody else does too. I'm glad to be here.
Stephenville itself, of course, is the largest
community in my district. It has a population of approximately 6,600, but it
serves as a catchment area for about 25,000. It is a hub for the entire area.
Long before it was Stephenville it used to be an Acadian village. It was
actually settled by people from Nova Scotia who left poverty and strife in Nova
Scotia to come and settle in the rich fishing grounds and farmlands that Western
Newfoundland had to offer. That's what started the settlement as an Acadian
village.
Of course, in 1941 the Americans got permission to
basically get the rights to build an air force base in the area. That itself
took off and everybody, I think, is quite familiar with the history there. Over
the years, that infrastructure has been continued to be used and the people of
the district still celebrate what they call the Friendly Invasion. Every summer
they put off two weeks of activities and they set up the actual base where the
original gate would have been between the town and the base. It's quite a good
celebration and a lot of history there.
The Port au Port Peninsula itself was actually settled
during the 16th and 17th centuries between French and Basque fishermen who used
the West Coast of Newfoundland and the Port au Port Peninsula for seasonal
fishing settlements. During and after the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and the
Treaty of Paris in 1763, France actually retained the right to use land on the
West Coast of the Island. The area, of course, that became known as the French
Shore and Port au Port Peninsula was at the centre of that. It wasn't until 1904
that France actually relinquished its right of use to the French Shore.
The Port au Port Peninsula itself represents perhaps
the most varied ethnic and linguistic mix in the entire Island portion of the
province, including Mi'kmaq families, with the highest proportion of
French-speaking settlement on the Island, the French minority a mix of Mi'kmaq,
Acadian, French and Basque. They've also had an influence on the area's culture
and, indeed, the province. Newfoundland's own unique folk music has somewhat
been influenced by musicians from the Port au Port Peninsula, including the
highly regarded Emile Benoit.
Our community and our district, though, do have its
challenges. Earlier today, I was glad to hear the Minister of Transportation
talk about infrastructure. As I said, Stephenville was able to benefit from a
significant infrastructure investment left over by the Americans. But, of
course, in recent years that has started to have its toll of wear and tear. It
was built at a time when men and women could run up and down the stairs and
young soldiers and stuff.
Unfortunately, now many of those buildings are lacking
accessibility, including government's own Government Service Centre, which
houses Motor Registration and the courthouse. It is, I suspect, the only
courthouse in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is not wheelchair
accessible.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
No.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
The
minister is correcting me. Okay, it is one of and it needs –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Sadly.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Sadly, yes, it does need to be replaced or moved or done something with. It is
old infrastructure; it needs to be replaced.
We also have challenges, of course, with water. The
minister mentions areas in his district where there were challenges with unfit
water. I have places in my district that have no water and have to be carried by
buckets. Local service districts –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
WAKEHAM:
–
yes, that are actually having to go and get water in buckets.
The good news is we have been talking about it and
trying to find solutions with the local service districts. I'm hoping that when
they apply for funding as a local service district that we'll find a way to help
them to make sure that they're able to meet all the requirements to do it.
Of course, my favourite subject in the last number of
weeks every time I present petitions is on the community of Cold Brook, which
still has a kilometre of road to be paved. I keep hearing all these big numbers
thrown about roads and everybody talking about the roads. I'd settle for a
couple of hundred thousand dollars right now to fix Cold Brook Road. I'm hoping
that somewhere in some of the roadwork that's done, there will be some savings
that might be able to be applied so we might be able to get it done this year.
The equipment is in the area. It's still in the area, just so the minister
knows. Hopefully, he'll get a chance to get out and get an opportunity to see
it.
The other thing, though, I want to switch quickly to a
more serious subject in some ways, and that is the financial situation in our
province. I was doing some math and when I looked at it, three categories of
expenditure chew up more than 100 per cent of our revenues. Once you factor in
education, health and financial debt servicing, we exceed 100 per cent of our
government revenues, which means that every other single department of
government we have to borrow money for them to operate. That's partly what we're
doing here today is borrowing more money.
This is not something new; it's been around for a
while. I think just about every government that gets elected – I always used to
joke when I was working in government departments that there must be a letter
left over in the Premier's office that says to be opened upon election. The new
premier would open up the letter and the first thing they would do is read it
out, and it always said: It's worse than we thought. It seems like premier after
premier after premier. I would hope we will get to the point that when a
government is elected, that they'll be able to walk into the office and the new
premier will be able to say: It's exactly what I thought. That's where we need
to go, transparency and accountability when it comes to those things.
This government took over in 2015. They had a
significant deficit problem. They recognized it, they started the work, which
was their budget which increased the revenue side of the equation, but we never
got to the expenditure side of the equation. As a result of that, we're here in
2020, we still have an expenditure problem, but it's obviously a lot more
complicated now because we also have a revenue problem. I believe the Estimates
– and when we got the update back in July, I think oil revenues were down by
over $500 million, so we have a ways to go.
I'd like to see action. I'd like to see more things
moving on it. I'm not a fan of more task force. I think we've had enough
reviews. I think we just need to get on with it. I would have preferred to see
some movement on that. Obviously, this particular budget is a difficult one to
do that with, considering we really only had six months of the year for a budget
because COVID hit us.
I would hope we will get an update and a plan moving
forward and that we won't have to wait until after an election or any time
sooner to find one. The next budget, I guess in April, we'll get an idea of
where we're going but we – collectively, we – have a job to get ourselves back
on track. I look forward to being part of that, but I intend to hold government
accountable and to push to make sure things do get reviewed and that we focus
both on revenue but also on expenditure and find a way to do both.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I stand down.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to see you in the chair, and a former teacher who I know will keep
things in order here. Congratulations.
I'm
going to start with education, Mr. Chair. This has to do with the fact that in
my family five of the children ended up in a teaching profession. My wife's a
retired teacher, Grade 2. My daughter teaches primary at École des Grands-Vents.
Many of my relatives were teachers. So I come, I guess, by teaching.
My
parents weren't teachers. Dad worked on the railway; mom had a big enough job
staying home looking after us. It was unpaid work, but education was always
important. I always remember her saying, get an education, you don't want to be
digging ditches for a living. It wasn't until, of course, I was putting down a
patio one time, digging seven inches down and I forget how many feet across, and
I said, yes, now I know what she was talking about.
I
just want to start off with, I guess, I'm passionate about teaching. I've lived
it. I still think of myself as a teacher. I used to marvel at how my father, who
worked in the railway, knew so many people across the province. I guess my
children marvel at me, at how I know so many people, but when you've had a life
of teaching and you're involved with your association and the Canadian Teachers'
Federation, you start to know an awful lot of people. Then when you look at the
number of students who pass through your classes, you can see the number of
people you know and the lives you touch are enormous.
To
me, I looked at everything in teaching and education. It's not an expenditure;
it's an investment. It's an investment in the schools that exist now. It's an
investment in the future. It's an investment in our young people who will be the
generators of ideas and so on and so forth.
I
will have to say this, Mr. Chair; I've always taken the concerns of teachers
very seriously. I lived it. Which is why I always bristle when I hear anyone
who's in a position of authority, whether it's a CEO of a school district or a
minister of Education, telling me: We're not hearing anything, or I'm not
hearing anything. Often until it's too late, and then there's a reaction versus
when you could have been proactive.
I
can think of an example that stands out, Holy Heart High School, way back in
probably 2006. I don't know how many years I put in requests. At the end of the
year, you had to fill out the forms of what work had to be done, work orders. I
don't know how many years I used to put in about the fact there was a leak in
the ceiling – I was on the top floor – that needed to be repaired. Year after
year it got worse. Year after year, I would dutifully fill in the proper form,
the summer works program form, and each year I would come back and it still
wasn't done.
The
ceilings at Holy Heart of course had asbestos. Now, of course, it was during
exam week one January and I came up to my class and I walked into the classroom
and the entire ceiling had come down because of the excessive water. The water
had come down through my classroom, down through the four floors and flooded the
basement floor. The roof had not been fixed.
By
that time, despite having let the district know countless times, I put the
letter in that basically said right now, considering what's in this ceiling, I
can't guarantee the safety of myself or any student in this classroom. That's
when, interestingly enough, I walked up the next day and the room was sealed
off. Other teachers were upset and there was a panic at this time that, all of
sudden, the school was not only going to be closed for a week; it was going to
be closed for the rest of the year. Lo and behold, there was such a flurry of
activity and how we have to take care of that, but do you know what the main
concern was? Let's not let this get out into the media. We have to control the
message.
I can tell you that every teacher in that school was
angry beyond belief because these were all issues that they had brought to the
attention of the district. I can guarantee you that if I had spoken to the CEO:
Well, I'm not hearing it. Because there's a natural tendency to suppress the
information. We don't want that to get out. We're willing to share the good news
and promote that but we really don't want to hear about the things that are
going to cost us money. I'm thinking that if we had fixed that roof at the
beginning, it would've saved a huge amount of money in the long run. It would
have saved the system; it would've saved taxpayers.
Sometimes there are many reasons why people in charge
are not hearing; sometimes they're just not listening. I often realized very
early on in my career that there's a vast gap, a vast gulf between the official
positions on things and the realities of my workplace. I'll be up again because
I'm going to run out of time on this.
I will say this: I faced suspension as a teacher. I was
newly on the executive of the NLTA and I faced suspension because I spoke to the
issue of teacher concerns, the fact that teachers' concerns weren't being
listened to by the district.
We invited members of the district into that meeting
and their reaction wasn't, well, let's see if we can resolve that. Their
reaction was to drag me in, and the other teacher, and to chastise us and
threaten us with being suspended without pay, during exam week, when they
figured it wouldn't impact them much. That was the response. They hadn't heard
it, but their first reaction wasn't to say: We need to resolve this. It was: How
do we teach these guys a lesson and shut them up?
Needless to say, a week long with overwhelming support,
the suspension was withdrawn, Mr. Chair, and life went back to normal, I guess,
but there was a huge public outcry from teachers and the public itself. It was
at that moment that I thought to myself: If I'm going to be speaking on the
issues facing teachers, I'm going to be doing it from a position where the
employer will not be able to touch me, where I will be able to speak, not only
to my concerns but the concerns of every other teacher and give voice to those
concerns.
I can tell you that when I became president that was
the main thing I promised teachers, because here's the thing: The teaching
conditions of teachers are the learning conditions of students. I've already
talked a little bit here about the goose that lays the golden egg. You protect
your asset. You nurture it. You do what you need to do to protect that asset so
that it can keep on laying those golden eggs and keep on looking after the needs
of the children. It can make sure that the outcomes are met, that the school
runs along very well, that children are nurtured.
I can tell you that it's not in my nature to stop
talking about and advocating for the resources our schools need because it's
going to affect every part of our economy. The child that doesn't receive
services is going to become a child that's going to depend on more services
later on. The child that gets all the supports he or she needs is going to
become a contributor to our economy, to our society and to our culture. That's
what we're dealing with.
For the teacher, it's about how do they serve the
children that they have in front of them. I can tell you for a teacher it's a
very personal job. I enjoyed my 32 years in the classroom; wouldn't trade it for
anything, but I can tell you it's going to need resources. When I get a chance
again – Mr. Chair, I will be up again – I'm going to talk about the situation
today.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair is pleased to recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I find it fitting that I'm going to go after the Member
for St. John's Centre as he was my teacher growing up. He was a fantastic
teacher because he has passion. You can't teach passion like that. I'll just say
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
Mr.
Chair, congratulations on your new seat. You look quite fitting up there, I must
say.
I wanted to go back to something that was said earlier
today by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's. By the way, the Member helped me
out with something over COVID here. It was about 11:30 at night and she dug in
and she helped me out and it was resolved the next morning. I don't know if I
officially thanked her for that but I want to thank her for that.
She talked earlier on about doom and gloom and it's not
all doom and gloom. Of course, it's not. For those people who are out there and
getting their two-week paycheque and job security, it's absolutely fantastic.
I'm sure job security in this day and age is huge. But when you look at people
that are being displaced right now, who lost their job, who are on the verge of
losing their job – the Leader of the NDP talked about the fire department
getting two calls a day for suicide. That sounds like doom and gloom. Those
people are going through some doom and gloom there.
People are getting their power cut now. No electricity
in this day and age. They're getting it cut. That's doom and gloom. There's an
old wives' tale, I don't know where it came from that you can't get your power
cut during the winter. Yes, you certainly can. We hope not to see it this winter
but I guarantee you you're going to see it.
People can't pay their mortgages, car payments. We talk
about it every single day. I know it might sound redundant in here, but outside
these walls where it's actually happening, they need that attention. They need
it talked about in here every single day and we'll talk about it every single
day until those people feel a little bit more security than they have right now.
Kids going to school hungry. There are kids going to
school hungry. That's a problem that needs to be tackled and well before COVID,
too. No child should go to school hungry ever and nor should they come home and
be hungry as well.
Mental health illness is on the rise. It's
skyrocketing, it truly is and if we don't get a handle on it now, I said it
before and I'll say it again, it's going to claim way more lives than COVID-19
ever will. That's going to be a systemic problem that we better tackle here
sooner than later.
The Member talked about it taking three or four years
to get some legislation through, and I don't doubt that. I'm very new so I'm
still learning this process about legislation and how long it takes to get
through. I'm sure there are some great people working on it behind the scenes. I
want to thank them. It's a testament to what they're doing.
But this piece of legislation, when it comes to
locked-in pensions. We were told today that the only two rules we have here in
Newfoundland and Labrador is, well, if you're close to death or if there's a
small amount. Well, I'm sure it's easy to diagnose a cancer patient or ALS
patient. It's not so easy to diagnose a mentally-ill patient that's on the verge
of losing everything and will do whatever it takes to take care of his family.
Trust me, they are close to death and they should fall
underneath that category right now, because they're out there and there are tons
of them.
The other rule, of course, was if it's a small pension.
Well, what is small? Five thousand, $10,000, $12,000? Why can't we make that the
new normal that you can unlock? We're not asking for 100 per cent because we
know that it could devastate a person later on, or their family. That's put away
for their retirement; that's okay. But right now is when they need it. It's just
so absurd to me because it's their money. They don't need to wait five, 10, 25,
30 years. What's the sense of a retirement if you don't have a home to live in,
if you lose your family, if you lose your vehicle, if you lose your mind
nowadays? People are really, really stressed out there and they need some help
now.
I make this pledge right now: I'll sit here 24 hours a
day, seven days a week until we get that piece of legislation passed because I
know how important it is to the people outside the walls of this House of
Assembly. It's really important, guys.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
I call on the government to do the same. I know we banter back and forth on
stuff; this is not one thing I'm looking to banter about. I'm sure you guys want
the exact same thing. We need this. Whatever it takes for us to sit in here and
get this legislation hashed out, I'm begging you, please do it because the
people out there, they need it.
I have a guy up my way in Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans. He's 36 years old with a family. He's going to lose his house and he
has over $60,000 in a locked-in pension. He's going to lose his house.
When I knew I was running for politics and I came back
home from Alberta, I took $12,000 out of my own locked-in pension to run my
campaign. They allowed me to do that. We can't find some common ground where we
can allow people to save their homes, their livelihoods and their families? The
time for action is now. This has nothing to do with politics but this needs to
be done. I'm asking everybody here to jump on the same page and do whatever it
takes to get it done. It's very important to a lot of people out there and I
know it's important to myself.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the people of Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans. Most of them didn't know who I was and they believed in
me because they knew that I would be a voice. I have been a voice and I've had
the privilege, the absolute privilege, of representing those great people
throughout that district. As we move forward, we need to make sure that we
continue to represent them as best we can. I know that I'll do that.
I also want to give a quick shout-out to everybody's
spouse in here – wives, families. We signed on for this; they didn't, but they
back us every single day. I just want to say thank you very much to my own wife,
my two sons and everybody's wives or husbands or families out there. It's very
important that we thank them and thank them for their support.
These locked-in pensions, I don't mean to belabour it,
but we can't talk enough about it. I'm going to keep talking about it until
there's action on it. Again, it's not 100 per cent of a locked-in pension these
people are looking for; it's a mortgage payment. It's to put food on their
table. I just hope that everybody jumps on with that.
There are a lot of seniors out there as well. I'm sure
everybody has been to the grocery store here lately. The price of groceries is
going up like you wouldn't believe. When you're on a fixed income and you're
down to the dollar every single month at the end of the month with very little
left, and the price of groceries is going up 5, 10, 15 per cent, my God, that's
a lot for a senior or a lot for a person who doesn't have a lot coming in. I'm
sure we need to pay attention to those people as well.
The outside workers that are still coming in Grand
Falls-Windsor at the long-term health care centre – we heard it's 85 per cent
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working 90, 95 per cent. That's fantastic.
That's absolutely fantastic when there's tons of work we can let it go to some
other people. I want to dispel a rumour for a second because we always hear
about putting community benefits agreements for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
first, which I am 100 per cent on board with. Throughout my career I will push
for that.
Everybody talks to me about you went away for a while;
you went back and forth to Alberta. I didn't go back and forth to Alberta
because I necessarily want to go to Alberta to work; I went there to fill a gap
in their workforce. Trust me, when oil tanked and those rigs shut down, we were
the first ones sent home because they have a community benefits agreement,
believe it or not. They truly do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
We
were the first ones sent home. I wasn't there on my own volition because I
wanted to necessarily go there. Don't get me wrong, Alberta is a beautiful place
and I thank what it did for myself and my family and those many families out
there who choose to live here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be so easy
to stay up there but they didn't; they stayed home.
Anybody who talks about, well, you went away to work,
sort of thing, we don't want to cut it off, there's nobody prays for a day like
I do where we have to go outside this province to find workers. It's not today;
it's not going to be tomorrow. We should have 100 per cent of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians working on any project this government puts forth from here on
out and that's a fact.
There are people out there that have no work. I have a
guy in Grand Falls-Windsor who sits across the road from the long-term health
care centre and watches plumbers from Quebec enter that site every day. He can't
get a job there.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Shameful.
MR.
TIBBS:
That is absolutely shameful, it is. That man, what he has to go through to watch
that, it's like his own provincial government, his own province, has turned
their back on him.
I'm here to say I'm not here to turn my back on anybody
and I will help those people as best I can. Once I learn more about this and I
get the resources, I guarantee you we're going to dig in real hard and we're
going to do the best to put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first. That's going
to be my motto now and it's going to be my motto for the next 20 years. We will
put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first.
That's all the time I need, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the new role, so far, so good. I'll try not
to make this too painful for you.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a little chat about
public-private partnerships. We are late to the game on public-private
partnerships and seem to not be paying attention to many of the lessons learned
from several other jurisdictions who have gone down that same road. Perhaps I
can take the next nine and half minutes to start talking about them.
Public-private partnerships are not an unknown
phenomena. In fact, for a very long time we've been using public-private
partnerships but we've been using a slightly different format for those.
Public-private partnerships can be set up in a design, build, finance and
maintain structure. This is a relatively new undertaking. Previously we built
schools, we built hospitals, we built long-term care facilities, a variety of
public infrastructure with a design and build approach to public-private
partnerships whereby we go out and engage a consultant who will design a
building according to the specs provided by whatever entity is needed.
If it's a classroom, how many classes do you need? How
large do they need to be? What kind of gymnasium is there? Do we need kitchen
facilities? Are there rooms for the teachers? All very reasonable. Then, of
course, once that structure has been designed, government then takes it upon
themselves to offer tenders for contracts to build that facility and those
contracts are paid out. Once the facility is built and the contractors have been
paid, we, the public, own those structures. Then, of course, we will maintain
them and continue to staff them and use them and repair them for the life of
their existence.
What we have done recently is we have gone to a larger
model, which is a design, build, finance and maintain. The finance and maintain
part is a little more complex. I've heard several ministers and actually some
public servants talk about some of the benefits associated with this.
The trick with the finance and maintain part is that we
do not pay for these structures upfront. Instead we partner with a private
entity and they will provide the financing to build this structure and then they
will maintain that structure. All sounds well and good because that means that
us, as the keepers of the public purse, do not see that debt show up in a lump
sum on our balance books. Instead, what we see is a stream of payments year over
year for the life of the contract.
Well, there are some inherent problems with this of
course. When we talk about the finance part of it, there is no public
corporation that can borrow at the low rates that a provincial or federal
government could. In fact, because we are so large and we have so much revenue
associated with us and because we have the ability to tax and to raise funds, we
can borrow at some of the lowest rates there exist. However, someone seems to
think that it's a good idea to instead ignore the rates at which we can borrow
and instead go out to a private corporation who will borrow at a higher rate and
then charge us, too, for doing it.
Somehow, right off the hop, logic does not dictate that
this is a good idea. Not only then do we pay extra for the financing, which
costs the private corporations extra; we then pay these individuals to maintain
these facilities. Reasonable of course, but it all comes down to what kind of
maintenance will they do. What will that structure look like once it's turned
back over to us, as the keepers of the public purse and public infrastructure?
And, of course, then who will they have to staff that?
Some of these details are worked out in length of the
contracts, but by and large, most of these contracts are 30-year contracts, so
by getting someone else to build and finance this structure, we then promise
them a stream of income for 30 years into the future. That's almost
inconceivable. That's like buying a house, but we're doing this with someone
else's money and they're charging us extra to do that. Not only do these 30-year
contracts commit us to a stream of payments; oftentimes, these 30-year contracts
have escalation clauses in them, which essentially ties that stream of payments
that we make to the cost of living. That's dependent on consumer price indexes,
so if the price of oil goes up and the price of food goes up and the price of
providing everything goes up, then these folks are well insulated for any rise
in potential costs of living.
Now, here's a little bit of incongruence, because, if
you remember, the people who will be staffing these buildings are tied often to
public sector contracts or, if they're lucky, if these facilities are being
staffed by individuals who are no longer unionized, they have even less
protections, but individuals who are working in these facilities often have
contracts that are shorter term. So it's regular you will see a labour contract
that is three years long. Sometimes you'll get a four-year long contract and
sometimes those contracts will include – rarely will you see a cost of living,
but you'll often see a 1 per cent increase and maybe a 1 per cent increase and
then we'll have a number of years without any increases, which means that we
fall below the cost of living.
The individuals who are working in these facilities,
their purchasing power is being eroded over the 30 years that they're working
there. At the same time, the people who put those facilities there are getting
their guaranteed stream of income and a cost of living associated with that.
It's wonderful if you are a corporation or a private entity that can afford to
find the financing to do this but, of course, it is going to erode the
individuals who are working and their purchasing power.
What we're doing in this very one, small instance of
the bad associated with P3 contracts is we are creating a further and further
division of income. The entities that own these private corporations are reaping
enormous profits that are associated, that are also increasing with the cost of
living. Someone who owns these, these shareholders, are getting richer and
richer and richer, while the individuals who are working these facilities have
their income and their purchasing power –which means the amount of stuff they
can afford to buy with the paycheque that they get – is eroded and eroded and
eroded.
What we've seen here in Newfoundland and Labrador over
the last, I'm going to say, 10 years in particular – 20 years if you want to go
outside of the last couple of booms that we've had – is a greater and greater
division of income. What we're seeing is the rich are getting richer and the
poor are getting poorer. As we continue to use P3s, we are going to continue to
exacerbate this division in our society, so our society is no longer equitable.
It becomes divisive.
A fundamental rule of economics or a premise of
economics says that the more even the distribution of income in a society, the
more prosperous everybody becomes. As we start making decisions that start
exacerbating this division in income and this division in welfare, we are
exacerbating the divisions in our society. People are going to be less able to
fend for themselves. People are going to be more dependent on the provision of
public services. We are going to have more people knocking on our door saying: I
need somewhere to live because, as we've seen, booms in our economy create huge
increases in housing and leave a lot of individuals unable to afford affordable
housing. We also see individuals who don't have dental care, we see people who
have to go to food banks more and more often.
That very simple concept of P3 models is exacerbating a
problem in our society that we have yet to deal with. There leaves a great deal
to be desired. I haven't even started reading from the summary document of why
P3s are bad, which I will, because it seems we're going to have a very long
evening of it. That is one part of the rationale why we should not be using
public-private partnerships to provide public infrastructure that the people
whom we represent need to use.
Thank you vey much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's indeed a privilege tonight to get here again and
to represent the District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people in it.
Mr. Chair, let me first start off by saying congratulations. You're a perfect
fit for the Chair. I've watched you since you came here in the House of
Assembly. You sit in the corner and you listen to every speaker in this House of
Assembly.
There are not a lot of us who do that, but you're to be
applauded. The people of Bonavista should know that your attention every day is
noticeable in this House of Assembly. You do a fantastic job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
This is a time that I really enjoy; the 10-minute speech is a whole lot easier
than the 20-minute speech. We may get an opportunity to do this several times.
I've been in the House of Assembly where we went eight hours. One night I had to
go every third time to do it. It's a great time to be able to speak. You can
speak about anything; that's just par for the course.
First of all, I'm going to start off tonight with the
first part of the speech. I wrote a couple of things down. I'm going to say some
thank yous. I am going to thank Dr. Fitzgerald and her whole staff for
everything they've done for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
We're very lucky to be living in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador where
we can feel safe. I know that this pandemic, nobody knew where it was going or
where it was going to be. We saw what happened at the funeral home with a
cluster and we were all scared that was going to spread.
The Committee, which was led by the Minister of Health,
along with our former premier, Premier Ball and the representatives from our
party and the Third Party – I commend you all. I thank you on behalf of all the
people in my district for the fantastic job that you've done. Whether we'll
question about testing or question whatever – but we all, as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, have to appreciate the hard work that people have done to keep us
safe.
I know as my family – and I'm sure as everybody else's
family – we were all concerned about what's happening here. We look at other
jurisdictions in Canada; we look at jurisdictions in the United States. As a
matter of fact, we look all over the world. I was listening to BBC the other
night and I was watching what was happening in Wales and how they just shut
everything down right away because people are not abiding by the rules.
I want to say a big thank you to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador also, because we've done a very, very good job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
You
get the opportunity to see how it works. I watch the local stores in my district
and I go into Foodland or go down to Wilkinson's or one of these stores, and
everybody is abiding by it. You watch people line up and we know – listen, we're
not going to get 100 per cent, no, but the majority of people in Newfoundland
and Labrador understand and respect. That's what it comes to, it comes to
respect for your fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We all have different concerns. I'll have a concern
when it comes to washing my hands and doing what I have to do. I know there are
people in my district who won't leave their houses because of the fear of this.
I respect it, and I respect everybody that handles this the way they do. We've
done very good as a province. We have to continue to do good as a province. We
really have to concentrate and make sure that – we are getting cases.
I know Dr. Fitzgerald has said it's going to come here,
but we have to isolate. If we isolate and we go to a restaurant these days,
they'll take your name; they'll take your phone number. If somebody is in that
restaurant, they can go back and do some contact tracing and make sure that any
person was in contact. Those people, whoever is doing this job, I really
appreciate it. I know I haven't seen behind the scenes but, again, I really have
to applaud what people in this province are doing from the Department of Health
to Dr. Fitzgerald's group and all our citizens. I just wrote it down, make sure
you say thank you.
I want to touch on a group of people that we as
politicians – and I know myself, I've been here for a long while. It is a group
that I always said I would concentrate on, and that's our seniors. I've probably
eaten more chicken dinners than anyone can shake a stick at because of going to
different functions with seniors, whether it's the United Church in Pouch Cove
or it could be the Anglican Church in Torbay or the 50-plus club over in Outer
Cove. It's a time that I really enjoy because you really get out to be able to
mingle with seniors.
I can only imagine, because they're in a group that
probably has the most – they're most susceptible to this disease, to the
coronavirus. They're living in fear and they don't have the opportunity to go to
the dinners or go to even bingos. I know you'd have a bingo in one of the halls
down to the Lions Club in Pouch Cove. You'd go down to the bingo and the
majority of the people there were seniors because it was a night out.
I think if we can do anything – I know personally
myself, if I see it's a 50th anniversary or a 90th birthday, I'll make a little
phone call. That's all we can do right now, but we should be doing that stuff.
To your neighbours, if you have a neighbour that's next door to you and you can
drop them off a fed of fish or drop them off a few vegetables or whatever it is,
just something so they can communicate and stay the way they want to be, because
our seniors are the heart and soul of Newfoundland and Labrador. They've done so
much for us. They've paved the way so we can live the lives that we live.
I just want to make sure our seniors know that we're
here for you. If you need to reach out and there are some needs you have there,
please call and we'll do whatever we can. I know the local groups in the area,
I've spoken to the two Lions Clubs that are in my district, and they continue to
do a lot of great work for people in the district. I know we can't do the
chicken dinners and we can't do what's on the go but it's good to be able to
communicate. Pick up the phone and make a phone call. I know they would really
appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, I always say there are two groups, the young
and the old. I listened to the Member for St. John's Centre and he's very
passionate about teaching and teachers and everything else, but I'm passionate
about our students. I really am.
I got a phone call this weekend with a big concern, and
I know he'll appreciate this, of how important the cap and gown ceremony is to
students. Because when you have the cap and gown ceremony, it's an opportunity
for them to be recognized for their hard work, whether it's honours, whether
it's doing some kind of program that is recognized that night. I go to them all
the time, and I'm always amazed with the amount of awards that are won. It could
be an award for a person who wants to get in to some kind of an apprentice
program, whether it's electrical or auto body or something like that, but there
are awards all night long.
When you watch a student go up across the stage, they
worked hard for what they've done and the pride that's in them. Then you look
and, guaranteed, you can see Mom and Dad there, and probably Nan and Pop, and
they're just as proud. I've worked with the high school down in my area and I
know they're working on something this year for the students, but I really want
to emphasize that we really have to take care of our students. They've had a
hard year. Students have had a real hard year. I know we talk a lot about
teachers and we talk a lot about the resources, but we have to talk, too, about
our students because our students have gone through a very hard year.
We had Snowmaggedon. We had the worry of all the school
time that was missed during that time. We know teachers have to do a lot of work
to prepare for exams and whatnot, but students have to do a lot of work, too, to
prepare for exams, to prepare for everything that's in school. They've gone
through a very, very hard time. Again, I applaud our whole education system. We
were starting off this school year with a lot of things that were unsure. We
weren't sure of the busing and everything else. I've spoken to the minister
several times with busing issues in my area.
We're talking students; we're talking kindergarteners,
Grade 1s, Grade 2s and Grade 3s. How do they handle this? How do they not play
with their friend? How do they not rub up against one another? How do they stay
away from each other? They're only kids. They've done a fantastic job. Then, it
goes back to the teachers and the parents that have taught them. I have two
little grandchildren, I see them going off with their little face mask on all
the time. It amazes me that they've adapted, but children will adapt. They will
adapt to that.
Again, I think we're lucky to be living in the province
we're living in. I think this House of Assembly, while sometimes we go back and
forth at each other, we all have to work together. We all have to be pulling on
the same oar. We all have to be in this for the people of the province, because
I believe we live in the best province in Canada and I think we live in the best
country in the world. That's Canada. And I live in the best district in the
province, mind you. Anyway, I won't argue with you there.
I really believe it's a time that this province needs
everybody pulling together and ensure that our residents are treated the way
they deserve to be treated. I just want to thank them all for what they're
doing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the Chair. As others have said earlier, you
look like you belong there.
Mr. Chair, Benjamin Franklin said: By failing to
prepare, you are preparing to fail. I want to talk a few minutes about the
Barents and what I see as a lack of a plan. To be quite honest, I've said
several times, I think there's a lack of a plan with regard to our offshore oil
and gas.
The Barents is currently just outside of here,
demobilizing. The fine men and women that have devoted their lives to working on
the Barents and some who've sacrificed jobs in other parts of the world in order
to be home or closer to home – because make no mistake about it, when they're
out on the ocean they're not at home – are going to lose their jobs. They
currently sit in Bay Bulls with the arduous task of getting this vessel ready to
sail it back to Norway. Some of these men and women are going to go back to
Norway with the ship, but Norway has a policy where people from Newfoundland
aren't allowed to work there. So they will very quickly be turned around, sent
home and quarantined for a few weeks. They will resume their lives back here in
this province with no work.
Last week there was an article that came out about the
Pelles A-71, so that's our next drilling expedition. It's not 71 wells, as
somebody pointed out to me; it's well A-71. It's one well. That's the future of
our offshore right now. I'll say it again in case somebody didn't hear me: one
well. This is what people have gotten excited about: one. So as for
Advance 2030, if we double our
production by 2030 we'll have two wells. That's pretty good.
CNOOC is coming here and not scheduled to come here
until next June. So sometime between now and June the Stena Forth will spend
some time in South America and she will go to Israel. She will drill some holes
over there and then she will come to Newfoundland.
Here's what concerns me. As of November 1, when the
Barents departs Newfoundland, Newfoundland will be left without a drill rig.
I'll say that again: Newfoundland will be left without a drill rig. Government
would argue that the parking lot out in Bull Arm – that is in Bull Arm,
probably, because there are too many campers at Walmart, but anyhow, that's a
different story – can look after our offshore if there's an emergency. Anybody
who works in the offshore will tell you that is simply not the case.
Even when the Stena Forth comes here, she is a deep-sea
rig built for fine weather, kind of like a fair-weather pilot that only flies
when the sun is shining. The Stena Forth can only drill in good conditions.
That's why she is not coming until next June. She doesn't drill in the winter.
If we are to come to a situation where we need to get a
well capped or a work over or any of the things associated with the offshore
that happens on an emergency basis, we're not able to do that. To me, Mr. Chair,
that shows the biggest lack of planning that this government has displayed in
the last few months.
We will now be producing offshore oil and gas, we will
have lots of wells out there that things can go wrong with and we will not have
the ability to go out and fix them if something goes wrong. That's a very scary,
scary proposition. I would think in the last five years with
Advance 2030, with the C-NLOPB and all
the regulatory boards, we would all understand the importance of keeping
equipment here and having a plan going forward. I think there are a lot of
people in the industry that are concerned about this.
The reality of it is, for there to be a big hoopla
about one well being drilled in the next 12 months it's pretty bleak. It's very
bleak, actually. The men and women on board the Barents, on board the West White
Rose, the Terra Nova, the people that worked on the Henry Goodrich, the people
at the refinery, all of these people who've lost their jobs all understand the
importance of our ability to retrieve oil from the ocean's floor.
Mr. Chair, the theme that I have seen in the last 15
months, outside of COVID, was the lack of a plan. Lots of people would think
there was a plan. I don't think the hopes and dreams, all the platitudes and the
turning of stones was a plan. I think it was specifically that, it was hopes and
dreams. Now, when COVID has come along, we're left to pick up the pieces.
As I've said before and I'll keep saying, mid-March
when the letter went to Ottawa saying that we were in deep trouble, that wasn't
because of COVID. Now we have a budget where there's a huge deficit, which I
would say would be huger if we didn't get a Visa from Ottawa, I guess, for lack
of a better word, that the Premier could use to pay some of the bills and all
that good stuff.
It's a pretty scary proposition when you think of what
we're doing and dealing with here. The plan is what really scares me because
while people may believe there is one, we've yet to see it. I've heard Members
of government say: Tell us your plan. It's easy enough to say but we're not in
government and we don't understand the whole situation to be quite frank.
There has to be a plan and the plan has to include the
people of this province. It has to be a plan where men and women get back to
work. It has to be a plan where there's not an excuse. It has to be a plan where
we don't talk about the rest of the world. If we sit here and wait for COVID to
be over and wait for the rest of the world to solve our problems we will be
years and years behind.
We assisted Guyana in their research for oil and gas;
we went on trade missions. They're a very, very young industry down there and
they're already years ahead of us. Not a few months, not a few wells, not a few
rigs, they are light years ahead of us and we went to help them. The sad part
about that is for some reason we can't help ourselves.
I've said that we're rich in resources and we're a
province that has it all. We may have it all but we have a government that
doesn't know what to do with it. The time has come for us to come up with a plan
and a path forward where we utilize our own men and women and we utilize a
Newfoundland-first mentality. A plan where we look at secondary processing. A
plan where we don't just provide funding for buildings to grow marijuana, but
one where we know it's going to be packaged and sold here. A plan where
aquaculture is not only grown in Newfoundland, but one where it's packaged and
shipped around the world from here.
We missed the boat on so many things and now the
federal cousins look at us like a floating dock. It's as if they want to cut the
ropes and set us free. Let us sail to sea and forget about us. That's not good
enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARROTT:
It's time for people in government to go to Ottawa and demand better because we
deserve better.
We all know that we deserve better. The men and women
of this province deserve better. The people who work in this House of Assembly
deserve better. The men and women who work for this House of Assembly and all
government services deserve better. Everybody in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador deserves better. Better is reachable; it's attainable.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) an election.
MR.
PARROTT:
No,
I don't want to have an election.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Don't sound like it (inaudible).
MR.
PARROTT:
Yeah, it doesn't sound like you don't either.
The reality of the world is that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PARROTT:
Mr.
Chair, I'll remind the Member across the way that he says we're always talking
about an election, but it seems to me that he likes to (inaudible) about the
election a lot more than we do.
Mr. Chair, back on point. Newfoundland and Labrador
right now is the most vulnerable it's been in years. The only way for us to get
out of this is together as a province, as a government, that works together with
people who know the truth about what's happening and people who are fighting for
their futures. Right now, they're not fighting for futures.
$320 million from the feds for oil and gas and we've
heard on the news as recently as today that none of that is for the refinery
because it has nothing to do with the offshore. I'll tell you, North Atlantic
refinery certainly does produce oil from the offshore.
Perhaps that's an angle that the government should be
looking at. There are lots of angles that we should be looking at. If we don't
look at the angles, we won't find the solutions.
Mr. Chair, that's all I have to say for right now. I'm
sure I'll be back in a little bit.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Foremost, I have to say this is kind of uneasy, you
being a former educator and me being a former student. Far too often did I spend
at the front of the class, sitting next to the teacher.
It's a great pleasure, once again, to speak to the
House of Assembly and the people of the province on behalf of the District of
Mount Pearl North. I guess, when we think about this budget, just to put it into
the harsh reality, the amount of revenue that we take in is only equal to the
top three items of our total budget. I stand to be corrected on that. Maybe
someone will be able to correct me a couple of a billion dollars, but I highly
doubt it.
When you think about the top three expenses in our
budget being: health, interest that we pay on our financial commitments and
education, every other service that government provides, facility it operates
would not have the cash flow to continue to operate. That's the stark reality of
the situation we're in. As has often been said, we wouldn't run our households
like that, so why do we continue to run our province like that? Why do we
continue to spend beyond our means?
I spoke to this yesterday, and I had one of my comments
taken by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I guess, either in
his ignorance of the situation or a focused intent to make a political play out
of it. That comment was we are over paved. Yes, I do believe that we are over
paved. We have far too many kilometres to maintain and it is not sustainable for
the amount of people we have.
This government initiated a regionalization
consultation, as it did many other consultations, back in 2016, four years ago.
Do you know what has been done, Mr. Chair, since then? Absolutely nothing. Four
years have gone passed and nothing has been done. How can we continue to
operate? The only reason why we were able to borrow this money that we have to
spend this year is by the grace of the Bank of Canada. Do you know what? The
buck has to stop here. It is irresponsible and unsustainable for us to continue
to spend as we are.
In 2015, there was a change of government. But do you
know what we really needed to do at that point? We needed to change how we
govern, not a change of government. We, as a province, needed to change how we
govern, not a change of government. We needed to be more sustainable, invest
where there is a true return and manage our expenses and that hasn't happened.
We're paving roads that in less than a decade, maybe
less than two decades, they will be a road to nowhere and that's just a trend
that's happening right across the whole entire planet. When we have so little
money, how are we going to be able to justify to future generations when they
drive down those roads, and they're paying an exorbitant amount of in sales tax,
to pay back money that we borrowed to pave those roads. I can't see it at all. I
can't see the logic in continuing to be proud of spending money that we are
shouldering on future generations. This has to stop.
I'll say it more and more, over and over again, that we
have to be more self-reliant on ourselves. There is no reason – my colleagues on
this side and throughout the House have all spoke about how the opportunity and
potential is there. But opportunity and potential can only be enabled as a
benefit as long as there's initiative to capitalize upon those opportunities.
The only ones who are going to do it are the people in this province.
Far too often have we played second fiddle to other
province's dreams and goals. The LNG sector is a huge opportunity for us. Are we
fighting for that? That's a question. I look forward to hearing from the other
side.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) roadblocks left behind.
MR.
LESTER:
Guess what? A true leader can get around a roadblock, Sir.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
LESTER:
That's how you do it.
CHAIR:
The
Member for Mount Pearl North has the floor.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have to look forward, but we do have to take what is
happened in the past, there is no doubt. Yes, I'm pretty sure we can highlight
every administration in the past, their failures, and they've all had successes.
Believe it or not, even this administration has had successes.
What we have to do is not live by our failures, but we
have to learn by them. That's not what we are doing today in this House. Far too
often, we reflect on our failures as a way to make an excuse for the lack of
accomplishment in the present and that's not acceptable, Mr. Chair.
When we look at the investments of government, when I
look at the investments of government in agriculture, what we have done over the
past four years is we have increased the reliance on our agricultural industry
on the civil service. The Transplant Program, which is talked about fairly often
– we talked about millions of plants. When you divide that out amongst every
man, woman and child in this province, it equates to five heads of cabbage each
per year. That's not really a big dent in where we need to go. It's a step. It's
maybe not even a step; it's a thought of a step. But it is heavily reliant on
the civil service to produce those transplants.
In efforts to reduce the cost of operating government,
we have to look at: Would we be better off spending that money in the hands of
producers that may be able to produce the same at a much more efficient cost?
I'm not discrediting the work of the individuals at Wooddale, because they're
doing fine work, but when we look at a government that is trying to reduce the
amount of expenditures that it's having, we cannot increase the reliance of
industry on government. We have to put the independence in private industry.
Mr. Chair, in the district I represent there's a
vibrant community, a well-connected community. The effect of COVID on our
community has been particularly hard on many people. One of the areas that it's
been particularly hard in is the athletic and recreational component of our
community. Recreation and athleticism is largely a component of health. That
component, being a component of health, is ultimately the responsibility of
government. That's why when our communities reach out for additional funding to
operate these facilities, government has to listen. It is part of an investment
in good, healthy well-being.
Mr. Chair, while I may sound pretty negative, and I
apologize for that, but that's a reality we face today. It's not too late to
turn the ship away from the rocks; it's not too late to put a firm hand on the
wheel. We as a province, we as a people – and just like the Member for Cape St.
Francis said – all need to pull together in the one direction. In order to do
that, we have to be confident we're going in the right direction. As it stands
right now, I question that myself. As it stands right now, I see what we can be
doing. I hear it from all sides of the House. Yes, we talk about it but we
really need to act upon it and act upon it together. Now is not the time for any
more studies, no more consultations. There is the intellectual power within our
civil service and within this House to do what needs to be done and there's no
time to do it than the present.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must say, congratulations for sitting in that seat.
There could be nobody any better fitting to be there than you.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to start off on the
essential workers in our area. I would just like to put a thank you out to them
for what they did. During COVID, the smaller grocery stores, the people on the
front lines, they stepped up when we needed them to. The people in the Exploits
District are resilient people, so I would just like to mention some …
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
FORSEY:
As
the Member for Corner Brook said last night, I'm glad I have the attention and
co-operation of all the House. It's good to be able to speak here.
Mr. Chair, yes, as a District of Exploits, the people
are resilient. I've seen the people from Exploits go through a lot in their
times. They went from fires, floods, closure of railways, paper mills and the
collapse of the fishery. They did that and I saw that with the collapse of the
fishery. That was in the small community of Leading Tickles, a place where I
grew up and was raised. I'm very proud to say that, very proud of that little
community that I'm from. But I saw the fishery take a lot of beatings on a lot
of people at that time. It wasn't nice. There were a lot of people that moved
out West. A lot of people left the community. It probably took the community
down to half its population and the same thing with the rest of it.
When the paper mills left, when the railways left, a
lot of people went out West. They went out West to chase the oil. They went out
West to chase the jobs. When that went down, they started to come home again but
they've come home to nothing, Mr. Chair. They've come home to a province now
that's pretty well empty in work, pretty well empty in jobs. But we have our
resources, Mr. Chair, that we have to tap into. We touched on some of it last
night. Yes, right now we have the mineral resource; we have got Marathon Gold,
of course, going up in the Millertown area, Valentine Lake.
There's a lot more in there, Mr. Chair, that we could
tap in to, a lot more resources. Maybe there are some more minerals that we can
tap into there. We have a lot of resources and there's some happening on the
Baie Verte Peninsula, of course. The Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay would
know that. We've got a big area of that kind of stuff, Mr. Chair, that we could
probably do a lot more to help this province.
Forestry, again, we spoke about it last night. We have
no secondary operation no more, no secondary processing in the Central West.
There seems to be some confusion, I think, in regard to Central East and Central
West these days. It's not just Central. I'll call it Central but I'll be more
specific and say Central West, I guess. If we had more operation, more forestry
activity in the Central West area, it would certainly help our districts, help
the area, help the economy and help all of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.
Farming, again, of course, is another big thing that
can be done in there. We talked about it again last night and I'm sure the
minister and I might get a chance to talk about some of those operations as
well. There's great vegetable farming there. There's more we can do. I know
there's some work being done with regard to diversifying the farming industry
but I'm sure there's more we can do with regard to land and agriculture. I know
there's some land probably put aside for farming and agriculture, but sometimes
I wonder what that land consists of, how much of it is hill and mountain and how
much of it is actually bog and that kind of stuff that can't be tapped into.
Maybe we have to look at some better areas that we can tap into and make the
farmers have the places that they could use those products, Mr. Chair, and be
more utilized of the products.
Again, I mentioned the essential workers when I started
but I'd also like to mention the community sector groups in the Exploits
District. The community sector provides big help to our communities in the
region, especially the fire departments; all of them are volunteer fire
departments. They raise their own money and they help out the communities.
We have our church groups that help out the
communities. This time with the COVID and with the economy the way it is, there
are becoming a lot of social problems, Mr. Chair. Those community sector groups
are certainly stepping up to the plate. I know the Lions Clubs in particular,
the Kin centres, Elks clubs, Knights of Columbus, like I say, all the community
sector groups, they're feeling the gap right now in our economy. In the Exploits
District, that's certainly helped to fill a void.
The Lion Max Simms camp, of course, is fully funded by
Lions across Newfoundland and Labrador. That camp is for the disabled. It's a
beautiful camp. If anybody who never had a chance to visit it should take an
opportunity to try to go see it. What it does for even health care, basically –
that's what it would fall under. The Max Simms camp has that camp full all the
time with regard to disabled people, the blind and others that really take part
in the camp. That is filled by the community sector groups of our province.
Mr. Chair, getting back to the minerals and forestry,
I've heard some geologists and people in our area that find that maybe there's
too much red tape to get to the products. Water Resources seems to be a problem
when it comes to geologists finding minerals and getting minerals taken from the
ground without being aggravated too much with regard to the red tape. Maybe
there's some red tape in that area that we could lift to help get the minerals
resources back on tap.
Also, Mr. Chair, when I look at it, it is an aging
population. In some of the areas there is an aging population and we need some
more programs with regard to drug programs. A lot of times the drug programs
that we have, the drugs are not covered on different ones. I'd like to see some
more extra ones put in place with regard to the drug programs for the seniors.
After all, the seniors, as my colleague for Cape St. Francis mentioned, paved
the way. They put us here where we are. They paved the way. They built our
communities; they built our districts. Again, they were the ones that put us
through back when the papers mills, the railways, the floods and those things
happened in the Exploits District. They helped carry us through. Right now,
Madam Chair, we need to be helping those people as much as we can in regard to
drug programs.
Dental care is another one that we could tap into a
little bit more for the seniors. Madam Chair, they have a bit of difficulty
getting dental work done. Eye care is another one. I'm getting a lot of seniors
that are asking for eye care, glasses, that sort of stuff. It's not covered
under their insurance programs. Mr. Chair – I'll keep up with all the changes
that are happening here, I guess. It's a good thing I'm up front.
Anyway, it's good to sit here, Mr. Chair, and talk
about my district. There is more that we can do in that district. We have lots
of resources. We have lots of minerals and resources that we can take a good,
deep, hard look at and hopefully get some more resources happening in our
economy, in our region and in Newfoundland as a whole and create more
employment. Let's put Newfoundland back where it should be.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to say it's a proud moment to see you up there
sitting in that Chair. It's good on you.
I think it's an honour here again tonight to be able to
speak for the people of the Ferryland District. It's a great privilege. I'm
going to touch on a few things in the district here as I get a chance. First of
all, I'd like to recognize all the volunteers in all our districts, but
especially my district. I'm going to touch on most communities if I can.
Volunteers, for all the stuff that you've done in your
lifetime and you grew up – I'll use hockey as an example. There's an arena in
the Goulds; there's an arena in the Southern Shore. The people that have your
kids or someone else's kids up there, they're volunteering their time to run
minor hockey throughout this province. It's great they be recognized. They keep
the kids active and when they're active they're keeping them out of trouble. As
the teacher in front of me from St. John's Centre had said, when kids are
active, most times kids will stay out of trouble. That's not always necessarily
the case, but generally that's where it is.
They do a great job in running those programs. That's
just one area in the district that I'm thinking about. You have 200 and 300 kids
in a group, so to keep those active and keep them active for six to seven months
is a big chore. They're volunteering their time and it doesn't go unnoticed by
me because I did it for 25 years, I'm going to say, or more. I had, I'm going to
say, the privilege of a Sunday morning up at a power skating session that I ran
for 25 years. My daughter took it over and she's running it now.
We have restrictions due to COVID. We have 23 kids
allowed, 30 on the ice and myself, my daughter and son-in-law, so that makes 26.
Then we have four kids that volunteer their time to be able to come up through.
It started through the school and we try to get them 30 hours. I'm not sure
where that sits this year with volunteer hours, but to see the kids there and
see the parents, how responsive they are – they come in; they're not allowed in
dressing rooms. They have 22 seats put out, or 23 seats.
The parents have a designated spot in the stands that
they can stand and watch their kids, and the grandkids probably have to get
permission to come in. You sign when you go into the building. As the Member for
Cape St. Francis said, kids will adapt. They're coming in with masks on; they're
coming in with their gear on. They go on the ice, they do their session and they
come back off again and out through the door, so there's no hanging around. That
gives the arena, the people that are there, time to clean up, time to sanitize
all the chairs and away they go from there.
In doing a session, I said to the parents: You have
some kids out there four and five years old and they're crying; they want to see
their mom and dad. I said: Don't come out, leave them on the ice. They're not
going to die of thirst in 50 minutes. They will get over it. You're only
teaching them a life lesson. You go over to the parents and say: Listen, this
will get better each week. Due to COVID rules – and you explain it all. They
just nod their head in approval. You're out being a leader in your community and
you're out teaching kids some life skills. The parents understand that. They
understand where it is. They want their kids to be active and that's why they're
there.
I'd like to recognize that's just one group of
volunteers. In the Goulds there's the Goulds Lions Club. Last year, before COVID
hit, I went to a graduation in the Goulds. It was my first graduation. I was
impressed with the Goulds Lions Club. I would think in the night they gave out,
I'm going to say, 15 to 20 scholarships to students. That's a lot for $100 each.
That's a lot to donate.
These are groups that get together. They raise funds to
support the communities, support the schools and whatever they can support. I'm
sure it's people in their areas and it's just so good to see. I was sitting
there in the back row. They come and bring greetings from the area and from the
government, and just watch the group go up there, name after name, donating $100
to 15 to 20 kids, it was unbelievable. I had to go speak to them. Later on that
winter I did have an opportunity to go to a Christmas dinner during a snowstorm.
They thought it was pretty good that I got there during a snowstorm, but it's
just to get there and to be recognized. I thought it was great. They did a great
job so I'd like to recognize them as well.
I'll touch on a couple of issues and we all have those;
one is cellphone coverage. I'll drive home tonight; when I leave here I'm
probably on the phone until I get home normally. I could be talking to one of my
buddies or he'll be coming in the road and I'll say: B'y, you must be in the
Goulds now at the bridge. He'll say: What do you have, a GPS on me? I'll say
there are dead zones. We know where they are; all the time you're driving
through them.
Middle Pond is another area in the district.When you
leave Tors Cove and go to Cape Broyle, there's absolutely no cellphone coverage.
When you get outside of Ferryland to Aquaforte until you get to Fermeuse,
there's some bad cellphone coverage there. When you leave Renews to go to
Cappahayden there's no cellphone coverage there.
That's not counting how slow the Internet service is
for people in the area that are doing schooling from MUN. I get some calls from
kids that are going to MUN and their high-speed Internet is so bad. We all have
that issue. That's not something that I'm criticizing anyone for; it's just
something that we have to look at as a government to try to improve. It's
something that we should definitely act on because if the schools ever get shut
down again – God forbid that happens – we're going to be in areas that some kids
are going to be disadvantaged because of cellphone coverage and Internet speed.
It is something that we should definitely look at.
Another issue that has come up since September,
obviously, is our busing. We have some areas that we have 46 on a bus. I will
say this again – and I think it should be looked at – 46 on a bus wearing a
mask, which I think is good, no problem. I don't see any reason why we couldn't
put – it's available for 72 seats so if you miss the first two seats behind the
driver, it gives you 66 seats. I think if you put a mask on them and put them on
the bus, I think you could take care of all the seating issues.
I know that doesn't come from the government, it's the
health advisor, but it's something that I think can definitely happen because
these kids are in school with 30 and 35 in a class with no masks. To put them on
a bus and have 66, there has to be some logic to it. I'm sure they thought that
out pretty good, but just thinking out loud that 66 kids with a mask on should
be able to happen. I don't see why it can't happen. The 1.6, if it was there,
then it would be gone. We waited for extra buses but we still have kids that are
not taken care of that had courtesy seating.
I recognize there was courtesy seating but we still
have parents that are trying to make things work. They thought at the end of
September it would be ironed out. It's now the end of October and we still have
kids that – I realize it is courtesy seating and it is a courtesy seat, but they
were taken care of last year. There's no reason, I don't think – and I'd like to
hear some logic on it, but there's no reason we can't put 66 kids on a bus with
a mask on. I'm sure the epidemiology is there that they're going to say maybe it
can't, but I haven't heard that.
You go to an arena, there are 23, 25 kids there. There
are 30 allowed on the ice. There are 30 kids in some of these classes with no
masks on. I don't want to be sitting here and ragging on people, that's not the
purpose, but it is an issue that people are trying to deal with.
I see some frustration over there tonight in some of
the comments we're making here. When we did the 90 days to go back to 60 days
and we sat here for three hours, frustrated to death, and listened to all the
stuff that was going on over there, I was sitting here saying: B'ys, we have to
answer; we have to speak on this. We had to answer.
It's the same thing. When we're asking you questions,
you can't take it personal. It's not the way it should be. If we ask a question
that's a tough question, your heads roll back, you roll your eyes. That's not
the way it should be. We're not trying to pick on anybody; we're just trying to
ask a question that people are asking. Sometimes I just sit over here and it's a
question that we're asking, and for somebody to roll their eyes or roll their
head. That's what people want asked. That's what they want us to ask and that's
our job. So don't take it personally.
I said at home, if people had wigs on when their head
rolled back that fast, their hair would be on the floor. That's the way their
head shot backwards. It was just frustrating, that's all. I had the same
frustration when I spoke in the House when we went from 90 to 60 days, and I'm
sure you're going to get the same from listening to us over here now for the
next few hours and the same kind of thing; hard to answer and hard to take.
The shoe is on the other foot now, I'm going to say,
but don't take it personally. We're asking questions that people want asked, and
we respect that you'll give us an answer if you can. I'm throwing this out there
in amongst the busing but if there's an answer there then I think we could look
at it. I just don't see how it can't happen. Maybe there's something that can't
but hopefully we can look at that in the near future and solve this busing issue
and get the rest of our kids on these buses so we can get back to a regular
life.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see you up there. You're doing a great
job.
I'll just take a few minutes now. I want to talk a bit
about my district, but the kids in my district. Watching them through all these
challenging and interesting times and watching my own kids, they've adapted very
well. We have to give them more credit that they deserve because they seem to
take this all very well. They seem to adapt. They seem to be able to handle
this. They're little troopers, I have to say.
Even with my own kids, I figured when we started
putting masks in public areas and things like that, my four-year-old, I thought
this is going to be interesting, to ask her to wear a mask. Surprisingly, not an
issue. Her sister was wearing one; she wanted one on. We understand that if you
teach them and you explain to them and speak to them like they're little adults,
they seem to adapt. I'm watching it now. I flick through social media just to
see what the schools are up to and all that. They're still carrying on through
all these interesting times.
I was just reading about how kids in a Grade 6 class in
the middle school in Wabush, J.R.S., they're learning about hydroponic, growing
lettuce in their classroom. We're teaching our kids some great skills that I
wish I learned back then. We didn't have any classes about gardening. We didn't
even have civics class. Even how the House of Assembly operates, it's not taught
in schools anymore. We're seeing a comeback of these kind of skills and the
things that we need to move forward. This is the stuff we need to keep
encouraging going forward.
Even though we're in these COVID times and everything
like that, we need to make sure we're giving the skill sets to the children that
they can do better than us. Those ones coming behind us will do better than us.
That's why we have to keep making sure we give the proper attention, the right
investments and all these into places that are important. One of the most
important places is the kids that are coming behind us, because all the
decisions we make here may not affect us today, but for sure my daughter and
anyone else's child in here, or grandchild, they're the ones that have to come
behind us and live with the consequences of what we do here today.
We lost a large percentage of our farming and how much
we actually produce as a province because of decisions that were made before us.
Now we're doing the smart thing and teaching our younger people, well we made
this mistake but here are some skills that you can go forward and correct. That
way we have food security. We have these important things.
It doesn't have to start with agriculture and
aquaculture, but even in technology. At one point I used to laugh at my dad and
say, well, how can you mean you can't use a smartphone or why can't you get on
the Internet and anything like that. Now, my daughter is showing me how to do
things on a computer. You just have to stop and think that it's a progressive
thing the way we move forward. Some old stuff stalls with me, but things are
moving so fast paced that it's the younger ones who are picking up on it faster
and faster.
My daughter is in Grade 5 now. I look at some of her
work and I'm going, you're learning that in Grade 5? Because things have
progressed and moved and we've adapted, and they pick up things faster. I have
to say, kids today are very, very well adapt to the world around them. We have
to keep thinking of what investments do we want to make now that will affect
tomorrow and they're left in a better place than what we were left as a society;
the province, that they pick up from where we left off, is in a better place
that they can go forward and adapt. That's where key investments and key spots
and key things that we do today will help.
The technology sector is a very great one, and that's
why I encourage it. We should make investments in to our education in our high
schools and colleges to make sure these kids have the skills for the jobs they
want to do, that they see as a future for us.
I always go to coding and robotics and computer
engineering and things like that, it seems to be the way of the future. I speak
to the mining companies and they tell me they want more adapt programming for
the region, for kids in the region and for young adults. Yes, they're still
looking for machinists and millwrights and welders and all those things but
they're also looking for computer repair people, coders, things that a future
mining industry would look for.
They're looking for the right skill sets for
instrumentology, even different types of engineering and stuff now that wasn't
thought about even 10, 15 years ago. We have a new world, we have a new thing,
and the youth of the province is where the bright spot is. We have the ability
to do it but we just need the right key investments to make sure that we have
the forethought before we make decisions on where we're going to go with
investing and where we're going to put the right things in place for younger
people.
We have great infrastructure. There's a College of the
North Atlantic in all corners of this province. Maybe it's time to have a relook
at how we even educate our youth and rethink what are the trades and skills that
are required for the future. I'm sure that a lot of these skills will apply to
the fishery of the future, aquaculture of the future and the different kinds of
worlds. It's where we're going; it's where we're moving as a society, as a
people. We need to make sure that we have the forethought to think out exactly
where and when we move forward.
I'm optimistic. I think that the generation that's
coming behind will have a good grasp on everything that's going on. I'm sure
some of them are watching us today and probably thinking to themselves they
probably have ideas of what it's like moving forward, because they're the
generation that has to pick up where we leave off. Let's make sure we have the
forethought to leave off in a good place for everybody. I don't doubt that they
have dreams, aspirations and a vision for what they want to see and I'm sure
it's very well thought out.
I'm surprised sometimes about some of the knowledge
that my own little girl sometimes spouts to me. Sometimes I ask her what she's
thinking and sometimes it's really interesting how she sees the world compared
to how I see the world or her mother sees the world. It's very fascinating. We
need to look to the kids and look to the young adults in this province as an
optimistic future and a guidepost of where we want to be in 10, 15 years because
I know they're counting on us to make the right decisions now so they can make
the right decisions in the future.
I like to go to the college and that and go there. I'm
a CNA alumni and I still like to go back and visit some of the people that are
still sticking around in the Goose Bay campus. They're still there and they're
still teaching similar things. It's the same classroom and the same equipment,
but there are always a fresh group of faces there.
They're optimistic for a future and we need to make
sure that we ask them what their thoughts and opinions are on things, because
they're the ones that have to pick up where we leave off. We have to make sure
that they have the right knowledge, the right skill set and the right
investments in place that there's something to pick up at the end of the day. We
need to make sure that we do the right thing. That's the key, just to make sure
we invest in the technology and the skill sets that the world is currently
operating on today.
Things have changed. Even since I've graduated college,
it's changed so rapidly. The industries, the way that business is conducted,
everything, it's faster and faster. Honestly, some days it's hard to keep up on
the pace that technology and innovation has moved. It's something phenomenal to
think about.
Not that long ago I was dialing up on the land line and
interrupting everybody's day with the phone lines, but I can do everything I did
on that right now on a smart phone, which is within a very short time period. So
innovation and technology moves at a fast speed so we need to be able to be
quick enough to grab it and take advantage of those great innovations and
industries.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's kind of different looking up at you. It's not bad
though. We can get used to it.
Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to speak on this bill and
it's always a pleasure to speak in this House. I think we sometimes take it for
granted. We get in here for a period of time and we forget sometimes what a
privilege that was actually bestowed upon us, each and every Member, to sit in
this House and represent your district and take your place.
As days go by – and it was actually this morning when I
was driving in, I was thinking: Well, what's in store for today? As I drive
through my district – I'm fortunate enough to be able to live in my district,
sleep in my district every night, which I know a lot of Members don't. As I'm
driving down through Foxtrap and Long Pond, I stop and I think to myself: You're
going in to take your seat and representing every person you see on that road,
every resident in that community, to be their voice.
There are days you will be coming in here and you don't
ask a question, or you may not do a petition, you very well might not have any
input. You may have some; you may have a bit of debate. Every time you even
stand in your place and vote or you speak on a piece of legislation or as we're
into this budget debate now, a lot of times, not every time, probably more times
than not, though, it makes you realize what you're actually voting on, what
you're actually speaking on; actually, who you're speaking for. Because I think
it's not uncommon for a lot of us – and the longer you're at this you take it
for granted. This is a big responsibility.
Someone a while back – and they spent a lot of years in
this Legislature – said to me what happened to them after a while, they were 10
or 12 years in there, and they almost start forgetting that they were in the
House of Assembly, thinking that they were home in their kitchen having a
conversation. Sometimes you could react and say things just that you don't – you
just blurt them out because you're getting too comfortable.
I think the key with us, as elected officials,
sometimes is to remain grounded. I think that's something that is very important
for everyone, I think, personally, no matter if you're elected or not. I think
in politics, sometimes you feel like it's this constant battle: It's us against
them and sometimes us against the world and nobody trusts nobody. We have people
in our own caucus that don't trust us. The Member for Ferryland told us a few
weeks ago he doesn't trust anyone on his own side, let alone on the other side.
That was a message. We all have to learn something from that.
In saying that, there's an element of: There's a game
on. Members opposite, they'll say we're not going to go. We were only going to
have three speakers on this, but you don't know. Are they trying to pull a fast
one on you? This is a tradition of the House and it's gone on for a long time. I
expect it will go on a lot longer after I'm long out of this place, and probably
most of us. The important thing for all of us is – my main point, and it struck
me today – like I said we should never lose sight of what positions we all hold.
Whether you're a minister, you're an MHA, you're a premier; ultimately, you're
responsible to the people that put you there.
Ministers are bestowed to run departments for the
betterment of the province, but underneath all that, when they go home at night
or when they go home on the weekend, their main concern becomes – your
department, you'll be always be responsible; it's the minister's role, but
you'll always still be responsible for that senior that's trying to get into a
long-term care facility or that child that's leading the bus ride. It gets down
to the basics and that is the very raw-boned basics.
As a matter of fact, this afternoon I was here, and
sometimes lots of things happen in politics, we know, and you get frustrated. I
went to the caucus room and I start calling parents about busing issues. I was
talking to a lady about her mother is in a long-term care home, ironically.
After a half-an-hour conversation with those people, with my constituents, it
kind of brings you back to where we need to be. That's my joy.
I've always said it's not about getting on the NTV news
or on Open Line every day. We can call
Open Line every day if we wanted to, I
suppose, and talk to Paddy. That's never been my thing. I've always been the
person – if that comes, that comes. You deal with it. It's a part of the job.
The most joy I've always gotten is that of helping the residents in my district.
I can speak for, I think, most everyone in this House – I think I can speak for
everyone in this House that is their most joy, too.
I was fortunate enough and I don't know if the time
will ever come that we'll ever go back to that side. I did work closely with
ministers from previous administrations. When I look at ministers, I know what's
involved with their jobs. I've been there. I haven't been a minister but I was
closely aligned. I know how departments are run. I know what's behind the
scenes. It's not easy. Politics is not easy for anybody. You're on one side and
you're fighting to get to the other side; when you get to the other side, you
have a new group of faces trying to get – you're always in pursuit.
I know the Minister – I'm the critic for him now – of
Industry, Energy and Technology. I sat in this Chamber for a lot of years as a
staff person, like I say. I said last night actually I feel like, election-wise,
I've been – I'm in my second term, but the next election will be my fourth
election because I ran in the by-election and lost and then I spent 10 years
here prior to that. I remember the Speaker was a staff person as well. This
brings you back and you realize you've been around here a long time. I haven't
been in this seat a long time; I feel like it compared to a lot in the House.
I know the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, she
and I were elected the same time and a lot of faces across the way and I
remember that. That seems like distant memories, seems so far away. You feel
like you've been here forever. It is a privilege. I could spend my 10 minutes
talking about other things, but it's just a reflection sometimes. It's a
grounding effect sometimes, too. Again, we take an awful, awful lot of this
stuff for granted and it's important. It's important to talk about it.
When we get up, we can talk about our district stuff.
In my critic role a lot of times I'll talk about the oil and gas sector now. It
used to be always potholes. In CBS, I'm the pothole guy. Every pothole that
still breaks out they'll contact me because for some reason I have the magic
solution to getting potholes fixed.
MR.
P. DINN:
Not
any more.
MR.
PETTEN:
Not
any more, my colleague from Topsail. I still have some connection. I still can
get a pothole fixed.
But when we talk about oil and gas, we're still talking
about the residents in our districts. It's just in a different level. You're
talking about oil and gas; I mean, I'm talking about residents of CBS. You're
talking about the whole greater good of the province, which is what role we play
in an Opposition. It's the Loyal Opposition. You feel like you're always
critical of government, but if you really look up the definition of Loyal
Opposition, that is our role. Our role is to oppose government, not for the sake
of opposing. It's meant to get better decisions.
The role of government is to defend their decisions and
sometimes that turns into a bit of to and fro in this House and it can get
interesting at times. Sometimes there's commentary and that comes with the House
of Assembly, the back and forth. We always should be seeking to make better
legislation, to make lives better for the people of this province and in doing
so that's the fulfillment; that's what you're put there for.
Some people say: We like to be on the government side,
during election time. We need to be on government side. But if you don't have an
Opposition, I don't think you got a good government. It's hard to pick who wins
and loses. Who are you going to have in Opposition? Then it comes down to
candidates and pure election readiness and willingness. But it's our democracy
and it's the way it's set up. It's something that I think that sometimes it's a
good reminder and I use it as a good barometer for my own self sometimes to take
a step back and assess it.
I know a year or two ago in this House, I think it was
20 minutes I had and I didn't know what I was going to speak about, which most
times I don't. I'll just get up and I'll pick a topic and I'll go. For some
reason it was today and I was talking about being in the bubble. My good friend,
the person I replaced and a good friend of mine, the former MHA for CBS, he used
to always talk about that. He said: We're always in a bubble. You're in a bubble
in there.
You get in there and we think we're doing great, he
said, and you walk out and you read the newspaper and you turn on the radio and
it would be like – that's when they were in government – you're not doing as
good as you think you are. You're in this room and everyone is telling you: Yes,
everything is great; it's wonderful. He said, then you go for a weekend and you
go to a festival, you go somewhere else and you come home and Sunday evening
you're depressed. We're not doing so good after all. He always used that as his
forum, and he's a pretty successful politician. He used it as his own measuring
tool to keep himself grounded, to get back to the reality, to get back to the
basics, he would call it.
I remember spending a full 20 minutes talking about it.
When I spoke about it different people happened to be watching us. People say no
one is watching it, but people actual watch us. A lot of people found a really
interesting concept is that – that full concept because sometimes you get lost
in the bubble. The moral of my point is we should never lose sight of what we're
here for and that's to represent the people of this province and the people of
our districts, who we so proudly represent.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just going to have a few words here. You listen
back and forth, you make notes and you listen very attentively. With the words
I'm going to have, I don't want to diminish any hard times that people are going
through. I know the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans brings it up about
people with their cars and the mental stress, and it's true. It's reality. It is
reality.
I know the government – every person here in this House
would want to make everything all right for people. But when you look at
perspective, I'll just go back. I've been involved a small bit with an orphanage
in Africa and some schools in Africa and a few other groups in Africa. With the
pandemic hitting in Africa and when you look at the culture of Africa, Uganda
and Kenya, the female is usually the breadwinner of the house. What they usually
do, if you had the length of this House and you could see down, there are
probably about 100 little stalls there. What they do is they sell food along the
stalls. That's how they make their money to eat.
Down there in the last five or six months, they were
all shut down. They were shut down. A lot of them were hungry, one meal a day.
Some, no meals a day. I know a lot of Members here – when I was doing – still
doing it – with the shoes, with the jiggers. I know a lot of Members in this
House on both sides supported me on that and gave me donations towards that.
When you see kids down there with no shoes, jiggers, can't walk because they
have these parasites in their feet – they can't walk, no food – it puts it in a
perspective here for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I don't mean to diminish any of the hardships that are
going through Newfoundland and Labrador but my point is, we're going to get
through it. We'll get through it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JOYCE:
The
point I'm trying to make is our life now, is about 100 million people's dream to
be where we are, even with the hard times we have, because it is tough. It is
tough in a lot of those countries through the pandemic. When you take the
pandemic in Africa where you – actually, I know one school, Mama Kevina school,
Sister Claire, when she had people put their hands through the gates to get food
– kids. It's tough. It's really tough. But when you look at Newfoundland and
Labrador right now, we are going through a tough time, we are. There are a lot
of people, a lot of concerns.
I'm sure a lot of the Members here are fighting for
their constituents to get stuff done. I remember back with the cod moratorium,
also. It was tough, but we got through it.
When I look at this House now and I look at all of us –
I know the Member for CBS just gave a speech about the Opposition keeping
government accountable. It's so true. But we all have to try to remember that we
will get through this. I can assure you, in years to come we will look back at
this here and we'll say, yes, it was a tough time, when we're sitting down in
our rocking chairs and we talk about the pandemic and the people in this
Legislature – there are only 40 of us. There are a privileged few to be sitting
in this Legislature. We'll sit back and say, yes, it was a tough time, but
here's how we all worked through it. That's what we have to look at is the
future and how we can plan for the future.
I can assure you that as tough as we have it here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the situations I've been seeing in the last
three or fours years, it's tough. It's a lot tougher than we what have here. I
don't mean to diminish anybody who's losing their home or their car. I don't
diminish that one bit. That's where we have to come in with a good Opposition to
get good government. We all have to work together somehow to try to find a
solution to it. I can assure you, we're the dream of a lot of people in this
world through this pandemic, Newfoundland and Labrador, even with our tough
times.
I say to Sister Clare and I'll say to Marjorie and the
girls who are running hope, the orphanage down in Africa, I know the tough time
they're having getting food through to the orphans down there that they're
responsible for. They're doing a great job of it. I know Sheila (inaudible) down
in Kenya who's still doing jiggers. When you see some of the pictures that she
just sent me of people with no shoes with jiggers who can't walk and who are
begging for food, we have to feel lucky. We still have to strive to do what we
can for people here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so we can help
out others less fortunate.
I won't speak much longer, Mr. Chair, but to the MHAs
in this House, we are the fortunate ones to try to put Newfoundland and Labrador
on the course that we're going to get through this and come through it. Every
concern that's raised in this House that I made notes of is a real concern for
everybody. What we have to focus on is that we as a group, we will get through
this. We will get through this. Let's keep the debate going back and forth. It's
great to have a debate back and forth to offer good ideas and offer some things
that should be done or can't be done and come up with some solutions. I can
assure you, even with the condition we're in now, we're the envy of many.
I, for one, I'm no different from any MHA in this
House. If a concern comes up and you think we can help people out, we're going
to do it. No matter how passionate we become, it's a reality that we have to
work for our constituents and work to make a better place for the people we
represent. I'm no different and I'll do that.
As I said before and I'll say it again, we will get
through it. I know we have to keep the government's feet to the fire and I know
the government has to stand up and make tough decisions to get through this. I
know there are so many issues that arose within this pandemic – we go to the
offshore and we can go out to many other places, Mr. Chair. It's tough times.
I know a lot of people in the schools, it's tough
times, but we will get through it. I just want to say, keep up the voices here
in this House to each other because we need that. We need the passion. We have
to have passion. When you get passion on both sides of the House – not just one,
on both sides of the House – you'll get good results, because that's what makes
us remember what we're doing here, is to help out the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I can assure you there are a lot of people I know, I
deal with in other places, that are going through a lot more difficult time than
us and they have a lot of hope also. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
just keep the hope. Let's keep our work going. Things will get better for all of
us. We have to try to find the best way possible to end this pandemic, end the
issues that are related to the pandemic, move our economy forward and move the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to see your face in the Chair. You're doing a
great job.
It's always a pleasure in this House to speak,
especially as a representative for the wonderful people from the scenic
community and District of Topsail - Paradise. I actually just came back from a
meeting this evening with a group there discussing a community playground and
community park. It's one thing the District of Topsail - Paradise has is a very
young community, a very vibrant community with a good seniors community as well;
lots of volunteers, lots of kids, lots of activities. I'm surrounded by many
schools: four K to 6 schools, one K to 4, a high school, a middle school and
soon to be open another intermediate school, so lots of kids in and around the
district.
Today and this evening, I just want to take an
opportunity to talk about an issue I saw when I worked with government and I
think it's an issue that's become more evident now through COVID. We see a lot
of individuals who are struggling with employment opportunities, being put out
of work, working part-time and so on.
The Department of Immigration, Skills and Labour have
programs that are funded to assist individuals in obtaining employment; huge
dollars contributed from the feds under the Labour Market Development Agreement.
You're looking at somewhere in the range of $130 million-plus. These programs
are designed specifically to assist people in getting back to work. There are
some parameters: You have to be EI eligible, you have to be out of work for two
years or out of school for two years and you have to have made a proper search
for a job in your area.
That's fine in, we'll call, normal times, but in my
district I've been approached by many individuals who are looking to continue
their careers or have a career change as a result of COVID and there's no
flexibility when it comes to the programming that's available. You either fit in
that box or you don't. Granted, there are programs there for many different
types of individuals in different situations, but it doesn't always cover
everyone.
I just want to go through, just give a description of
some of these cases that I've experienced. I certainly won't be identifying
anyone, but I'm sure everyone in this House of Assembly has experienced similar
inquiries, again, more prevalent because of COVID.
I had a young individual. He's enrolled in college. He
plans on returning to college full-time in the following year in a computer
programming course. His goal was to improve his education skills, obtain gainful
employment and earning sufficient income to meet his basic living needs. He's
working part-time. He works at a warehouse, this individual, but he wants to do
better. He wants to do better and improve himself. He wants to move out into his
own apartment and support himself.
His gross income was a little under $900 a month and
his basic expenses, if he had to move out, would be around $1,600 a month.
That's very basic; however, when he applied he doesn't meet the criteria because
he's working and making too much money. Imagine, making too much money. There's
a case where we need more flexibility within our programming.
I have another gentleman. He was accepted into a
computer programming course at the College of the North Atlantic. They tell him
he hasn't been unemployed long enough and, as a result, doesn't meet the basic
eligibility criteria. This individual worked in the oil and gas industry. He
graduated with a petroleum engineering technology degree back in 2014. He has a
fiancée and a young daughter. As a result of COVID, he's been laid off with no
possible option for callback over the next three years. He wants to better
himself. He does not meet the criteria because he hasn't been out of work long
enough.
I have another individual, a pilot. He's been laid off.
There's no end in sight for the airline industry. He's been told two to three
years before he expects a callback. He wants to go back to carpentry school and
he has been accepted. He wants to go to school and start his new business, start
a new career. He missed the deadline applying for the Skills Development Program
by a couple of days. He was told to wait until he receives EI and come back next
year. Again, we need to be more flexible.
Another individual works full-time hours at security.
He's out of school two years; he was accepted to the industrial millwright
mechanics course. Because he couldn't get a letter from his current employer to
say that he would not get more than 20 hours a week part-time – because of that
– not eligible.
Another individual accepted into the cooking program at
the College of the North Atlantic visited the office July 20 and told the
deadline was July 19. Imagine. Was also told that because of that, there would
not be sufficient time to provide the appropriate assessment on whether, in this
case, he would be eligible. The list goes on. I have a number here, but I think
I've made my point.
This is not a criticism of the staff of these
departments – not at all. They are given guidelines and they are given polices
that they follow. Some of the individuals in Immigration, Skills and Labour – a
lot of social workers; a very, very good profession, career, but under a lot of
stress at many times. A lot of that stress is due to caseload, but also due to
the fact you have individuals you want to help, but the means are not there to
allow it. You have income cut-offs – and I'll toss it out there. For example,
say a $20,000 income, you're qualified; $20,001, you're not. That's what they're
tied to.
My point, going back to the situations that I've
raised, goes back to – and it has always, always, for as long as I've worked for
the department, and we worked under the NLDA agreements and it continues to this
day – flexibility in the programs. We live in a province, right now, with the
highest unemployment rate, declining population under any scenario, an aging
population and it can go on and on and on. I can tell you right now that the
same program applied in Quebec has a lot more leeway than we do. I think it's
really time for us – and I say us, the collective us – to push the envelope on
flexibility amongst these programs.
We talk about people falling through the cracks. I just
read off half a dozen cases that I have. I guarantee you that this is one big
crack because we have a lot of people falling through it. For the sake of
standing up for the people of this province and putting some money from a NLDA
agreement – I'll call it a slush fund. Call it what you want, call it an
exception fund, but there are cases out there – very good cases – that need to
be funded. We need to fund them and the money is there to do it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's great to have another opportunity to speak to this
bill. Mr. Chair, there are so many different things, I suppose, that you could
talk about. No shortage of topics, that's for sure. I do want to pick up,
though, on a couple of things, listening to the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans. I was listening to some of his comments and it really struck me because
I have a number of people that I've talked to, who have reached out to me, a
number of people in my district who were in that exact same boat.
A lot of times people have this, I'm going to say,
misconception – because it can be a misconception – about my district. My
district – not unlike some of the other urban districts, but certainly in my
district a lot of the people, a large portion of the demographic, if you will,
are working, professional people; a lot of cases two-family incomes. A lot of
people working in the public service, whether it be here in this building or
teachers or nurses or doctors or dentists.
There are a lot of small business owners over in
Southlands and in parts of Mount Pearl a lot of small business owners. Also, a
lot of people employed in oil and gas, some of them working on the rigs as
roustabouts and so on. A lot of them, though, are engineers and those types of
jobs, highly skilled, technical jobs. A lot of them working in Alberta in the
oil sands – rotational workers. Some of them are what's been deemed as regular
rotational workers coming from Alberta or different parts of the country. I also
have a number of international rotational workers who are working in Africa, the
Middle East and everywhere on the globe, primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Generally speaking, when you think of that demographic
you'd say they're doing well and in normal times they are doing well. They're
living in nice homes. The average home over in Southlands is about $400,000,
$450,000 as a mortgage; the same thing in many parts of Mount Pearl. Some of
them are a bit lower. There's a range but certainly in Admiralty Wood it's
$450,000, $500,000, $550,000, $600,000 some of them. A lot of parts of the
district they're probably $300,000, $350,000 that type of thing.
Galway, not a lot of people living there yet, but,
again, high-end homes. Yes, they have a nice SUV and so on, probably and they
probably have a second vehicle; their house is nice; their kids are in dance and
hockey and everything else.
Sometimes when you look at a situation like this and
you're saying, those people aren't impacted by any of this, they're doing fine.
There is no issue with them. We talk about the people who are lower income, we
talk about the fixed income seniors and so on, and not diminishing their
situation at all. I do have some people in some parts of my district in that
boat as well and not diminishing it one bit, but, the reality of it is, if you
have a household and they're making good money, nobody gave it to them. A lot of
them, they worked hard for it. Built up a business, took a risk, a lot of them.
A lot of them had to go to university for five or six or seven years and so on
to get what they have around them, but like most of us, the bank owns it, owns
most of it for at least 25 years or 30 years, whatever the case might be.
When these people are hit by COVID-19 and we talk about
well CERB came along and so on. CERB was great. I'm not knocking it. I know
we're going to have to pay it back at some point, the federal government, we're
all going to have to pay it, as taxpayers, but the federal government, as far as
I'm concerned, did what they had to do and we all appreciated it; the money
that's been put in so people can survive. We're lucky we are in a country that
was able to do that.
But $2,000, yeah, some people it sort of replaced their
income. Some people, they're better off than they ever were on CERB. Some would
argue there are some people who didn't want to go back to work, even if they
could have went back to work because they were getting more money home on CERB
than they were actually working. I'm sure there are some people in that
situation.
But I would say to you, if you were working in say the
oil and gas industry and the bottom dropped out of the oil prices and now you're
laid off or you were laid off in Alberta or whatever the case might be or you're
a small business owner and all of a sudden your business is basically shut down
and there's no income coming in the door. While $2,000 a month is appreciated,
it's really a drop in the bucket when you compare that $2,000 with your
expenses.
I know there are some people who make the argument,
well, I have to live off $2,000. I understand that. There are people who do.
People live on a lot less, but their lifestyle is adjusted accordingly – the
bills they have to pay, the mortgage they have to pay – because everybody lives
to their means; most people live beyond their means. That's just reality.
Yes, there are a lot of people, even the people that
would be considered well-to-do, so to speak, that are really in trouble as a
result of everything that's gone on. There's a lineup that I have created. My
office has created a lineup on our own – I'm just saying – from our office to Al
Antle's office of people that we've had to send down to Credit Counselling
Services; people that are on the verge of insolvency, of personal bankruptcy.
Yes, there are people who are suffering silently with
mental health issues as a result of this. Yes, there are people that probably
have or will be thinking about doing harm to themselves. We've heard the Member
talk about the calls for suicide. Does not surprise me one bit. Yes, I've had
constituents who called me that their power was going to be cut off by
Newfoundland Power, and embarrassed to have to call me about it.
That's the thing: A lot of these people are suffering
in silence because their pride won't let them call and reach out for help. It
builds up and it builds up, and they're maxed out in terms of their stress so
they continue to suffer. Yes, that could lead to some pretty tragic outcomes.
Can I, in good conscience, pin the price of oil on this
administration? Of course I can't. Can I pin what has happened at the Come By
Chance oil refinery on this administration? Of course I can't. Can I pin what's
happened with Suncor and with the White Rose Project and everything and the
world oil prices and a pandemic on this government? Of course I can't. Do I want
them to be doing everything they possibly can to meet with all the stakeholders,
even if they are private businesses and entities, and to do everything they can
to reduce red tape, to lobby the federal government to do whatever it takes to
try to make some of these things viable, to get these people back to work? Of
course I do.
I'm sure they are. They have constituents as well. Why
would the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology want us to fail? Why would
he want the Come By Chance to be shut down or the oil companies to leave
Newfoundland? It's ridiculous when you think about it. Why would anybody.
I do believe they are trying, I really do, and I can't
blame what's happened on them. Do I want them to keep trying? Do I want them to
try harder? Absolutely, I do. Would I like to be more informed of what's going
on, for us all to be more informed and have some more input? I would, but I know
they are working towards it. It is a tough time.
As my colleague from Bay of Islands has said, compare
where we are to other places in the world. We've seen tough times before. As he
said, we'll get through it, but we have to get through it together by working
together. I certainly encourage the government to do all it can. I'm not going
to be here to obstruct you but I am here to offer input and to hold your feet to
the fire where necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I missed quite a bit; a lot has changed since I left
this House.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Yes, it's a little later.
MS.
EVANS:
Yes. Just getting to talk on some of the issues now.
In my district, I talk a lot about housing. I was on a
call with some university students across Canada actually this evening; this is
why I was away. They're political science majors and they were talking about the
issues. When it came to housing, it was all very, very negative and about the
high cost, about organization and different layers and all this kind of stuff.
One of the things I wanted to mention to them, too, is
the big issue with housing on the North Coast is – and this goes back to some
preconceived notions. Some of the issues I've dealt with when I was going to
university and when I used to work and travel in the province, a lot of people
actually believed the reason why we had problems with our housing was because we
didn't know how to heat them. Also, in the winter a lot of times they believed
we would actually cut up our houses from the inside.
In actual fact, that did happen in the past with some
houses where parents had kids and they had no way to heat the house. Their kids
were cold and they did damage to their houses. That happened a few times, and
all of a sudden everyone believes it happens all the time. Those are some of the
issues that I'm concerned about can impact policy, when people actually believe
these issues to be true and they're given a position where they're working with
a government agency or, heaven forbid, they're actually in the House of
Assembly. If they have preconceived notions, it could actually be very
detrimental to Indigenous populations and communities.
One of the things I wanted to mention today is we don't
know how tricky homelessness is because – in actual fact, when I was campaigning
in May 2016, I went into this house and there was an elderly woman there and she
wasn't overly well. There were two young men, her sons. I don't think she spoke
much English, so I was very friendly to her and talking to her and then I sat on
the couch talking to her two sons. There was only a couch; there were no chairs
in the house. I think there was one table. I didn't see the bedrooms. A very,
very bare house, not well maintained, in disrepair but it was spotless. It was
clean. You could tell the floors were mopped. The house was clean.
Anyway, that's all right. I was talking to them about
voting for me and the PCs and the Liberals and, of course, I brought up the
Lewisporte ferry. They were nodding very, very polite. I don't think they
understood a word I was saying, really, in terms of comprehension.
Then, later I was in the community and I ran into one
of the young fellows. He was actually working. He had a full-time job and he was
working. He was really good. Anyway, I seen him. Then, later I got a call from
my CA and she said I have two young men here and they're homeless. Their mother
had passed away and they had lost the house. It was actually a Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing house. What it was, the payments weren't kept up. When the
mother got sick, she was making the payments, and the sons I guess didn't
understand they were supposed to be making the payments. It wasn't that much
money. I think it was under $2,000, but the house was reclaimed. So they were
tossed out on the street.
Now, the concern my CA had was that one of them is
working and the other one is on social assistance. She said the young fellow
wants to quit his job and he's going to go to Goose Bay because there's housing
in Goose Bay. I said, what housing is there in Goose Bay? He said, well, there's
actually a shelter there.
To me, that was one of my first exposures to the
preconceived notion that there's actually adequate housing and shelter in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, which leads to some of the issues we're dealing with now. I
had a young guy working in the community, full-time job, and his brother was on
social assistance. They were evicted from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
because when the mother fell ill they got behind on the payments. He was
actually going to quit his job and go to Goose Bay.
To me, that was quite alarming. I started talking to
him and I said, with the shelter you're actually only allowed in the shelter
from 8 p.m. until 8 a.m. and then you're put out on the street. I said, in your
community right now you have people that can help you, people that will support
you. Even though they were living – in actual fact, most nights they took refuge
in the church. Anyway, I lobbied and advocated on their behalf and we were able
to come to some arrangement where they could move back into the house and they
could start back the payments.
When you look at the cost to our economy – now, if I
hadn't intervened, if I hadn't been fortunate enough to actually take the call
that day and ask all these questions, this young fellow, who was actually paying
taxes, he was earning an income, he would have left his job and they would have
gone to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to live in a shelter. Meaning, they would have
been fully homeless.
I just wondered, how long would it take for some
unfortunate incident to occur so that addictions would take over, or they would
have been seriously injured, or they would be injured in the winter? Because
sometimes what happens is people get hurt, so you're looking at a lose of taxes,
lose of viable income, being able to look after themselves, becoming dependent
on social services, becoming totally dependent on the system. Just imagine the
financial burden that would have occurred with these two young fellows.
I think what we have to look at is the cost of
programs, the cost of housing. It may actually have a large dollar value, but
when you look at the social, the mental health issues and when you look at the
hidden costs that happen when we don't address issues and get at the root of
them, they can be quite, quite more expensive.
I just took that situation, and I'll go to another
situation where I knew of a young fellow who actually had his feet frozen. He
was homeless as well. Now, what it is he actually can't get by without
assistance from the government, and if you look at all of those costs of helping
him.
The thing about it is for my district a lot of the
issues are hidden and a lot of the costs are hidden, but a lot of the value of
helping people help themselves is also hidden. A lot of people don't understand
that. So it's very, very important for us to ensure not only that we help people
who want to help themselves, but also we address issues where there could be
gaps that people could fall into because it's very easy to do that.
I talk about my district but, in actual fact, I could
be talking about any district. I could be talking about Gower Street. I could be
talking about somewhere out in Stephenville. The thing about it is, we need to
make sure that services are in place. When we have adequate services, we can
help people help themselves and we can actually save the province a lot of
money.
It just goes back to the insulin pump. What's the value
of an insulin pump, really, when you look at the lifespan of a person and you
look at the quality of life and you look at the less doctor visits? The thing
about it is homelessness is on a similar level. If we don't start looking at the
issues on the root level and trying to find solutions that actually work instead
of just throwing money at things, we're not going to get ahead. In actual fact,
people are going to suffer. When I speak, even now, what I'm saying is just very
common sense.
Homelessness is a huge issue in my district, but the
cost of homelessness actually can be quite large. Just a few little
interventions, I think, could actually help address those issues. We could
easily make a big difference.
My time is winding down now, Mr. Chair, so I'm just
going to finish up.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Lovely. It's been a while since we've talked about public-private partnerships,
so maybe we will review and then I'll carry on. How about that?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When last I spoke, I was talking about the design,
build, finance and maintain public-private partnership models and some of the
perils associated with it. Not only are we having a bit of fun today; we're also
learning about alliteration.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to address some key points in a
recent study about the many dangers of public-private partnerships in
Newfoundland and Labrador. At this point, I just want to gloss over some of the
key things and as the evening goes on, I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to go
into some of these issues in slightly more depth.
To point out, this study notes that Newfoundland and
Labrador “has a poor track record when it comes to ensuring that broad public
interests in infrastructure development are not trumped by private commercial
interests.” What we're seeing are decisions made to provide public
infrastructure, seem to put private commercial interests ahead of proper
infrastructure development. That should cause alarm for all of us because,
again, one of the key themes I talked about last time was the growing divide
between people who receive a very high income and people who are earning far
less.
An example, one of the things they talk about is: “The
mishandling of the Muskrat Falls project that has forced the province to the
verge of bankruptcy is” one small example. Not only have we not learnt from
that, we have gone all in on public-private partnerships. The first-time use of
public-private partnerships to deliver infrastructure – we're talking about our
jurisdiction. They note that our “jurisdiction has poorly developed mechanisms
of accountability and oversight ….”
We're talking about the expenditure of, up to this
point, $1.5 billion in planned expenditures over the course of 30-year
contracts. This is in the context of, again, poorly developed mechanisms of
accountability and oversight. That is a strategy that is fraught with risks. Of
course it is. If there is no accountability, then how can we be certain that we
are getting the best value for the money that we are expending? If there's no
oversight, then how can we be assured that the building we are paying an
exceptionally large amount of money for – and one would argue quite easily that
we are being overcharged for this. With no oversight how can we be assured that
in 30 years' time when the building is handed back to us, that we are going to
have a building that is truly functional?
A key point mentioned in this report is that we are
locked into a 30-year contract. Let's put that in a little bit of context here.
If we've been following along to some of the trends coming out of the economy,
for example, but if one wanted to go into the Economics, Fiscal and Statistics
Branch of the economics division of the Department of Finance, we would know
that they had been projecting the problems associated with the declining
population for years now. I would say for the better part of 20 years, we have
been projecting that we have a declining population and at no point in time have
we managed to rectify that situation.
In addition to that, we have unknown needs into the
future. Plus, we are currently in an economic and fiscal crisis. Why do we think
that it's a particularly good idea that we go further into the P3 model? In
fact, the author of this report says it would be especially unwise for
Newfoundland and Labrador to engage in any more P3s.
A little chat about some of the key findings. One of
the things that they talk about here is there are many hidden dangers in using a
P3 model. These hidden dangers, because we are engaged in 30-year contracts, we
are engaged in these hidden dangers for 30 years. Now, that is an inconceivably
long time because it's well ahead of – just think 30 years from now is beyond
our timeline for divesting ourselves in oil. It is beyond our
Advance 2030, we're all in on oil
objective. We are committing to paying for a hospital that we may not need in 30
years in the context of we have a declining population. This is not particularly
well thought out, Mr. Chair.
If I could refer back to some of the discussion I had
earlier in the day, when I was talking about the motivation for making
government decisions. If the motivation for making government decisions is to
simply take debt off the books, then we are not particularly well motivated and
we will continue to make exceptionally poor decisions.
The report goes on to suggest that if we proceed to
plan to use a P3 model for the current and upcoming projects, we're going to
solve some immediate infrastructure issues, no doubt about it, but we will lock
ourselves in to a long-term and more costly headache.
Again, I note we have jumped into the P3 world by
committing $1.5 billion in planned 30-year contracts. However, there is very
little concrete information or insight into the decision-making process. I note
the signed project agreements have not been released to the public.
Now, remember we are all keepers of the public purse
and somewhere someone has decided that it is okay to sign off and commit
ourselves to 30-year contracts and does not even release that contract to the
people who are responsible for making sure that the public monies are accounted
for. How is this conceivable?
Much of this information is kept secret on the basis
that it would do undue harm to the competitive process. That tells me that we
are putting the best interest of private companies, who, if you remember from
the finance comment I made earlier, are charging us higher interest rates than
we can get ourselves and a surcharge on top of that. We are putting their best
interest ahead of our responsibility to the people who have elected us here to
ensure that the monetary decisions we make are in their best interest.
Can we see how this is totally contradictory? We are
not –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
COFFIN:
Sure does and we all know how well that went.
What about the interest of residents? How can we be
assured that they are embodied in these contracts? Oh my goodness, look how
quickly the time flies when we're talking about alliteration.
When we talk about these projects, here's another
little thing: The provincial government has chosen to spend $5.1 million in
public dollars on studies. Laudable that we choose to study something. I'm not
quite sure how much of a study we get for $5.1 million, but I know if I went to
the university and grabbed a pile of professionals and offered them $5.1
million, I'm sure I would get a very fine and comprehensive study. However, the
$5.1 million spent on these studies has not been released in full to the public.
We spent $5.1 million and we don't know what we got for it.
For fun, 88 per cent of this $5.1 million paid – so
we're coming in at about $4 million – went all to a single consultant. That
consultant was awarded that contract without a competitive process. Does this
sound familiar to anyone? Sole sourcing million-dollar contracts without a
competitive process? How does this show responsibility to the public purse? We
did not get to see the studies that we just paid $5 million for.
This is inconceivable; this is an inappropriate use of
public funds. We get to pay out all this money to an individual that is chosen
without a competitive process and we don't even get to see the results of their
work. This is what we are using to form the decisions to spend $1.5 billion in
contracts.
Mr. Chair, I am only through the first two paragraphs
of the summary of the key findings and already this is egregious. I look forward
to the next opportunity for me to speak at length on public-private
partnerships.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I would like to now speak about another very
important issue in the District of Harbour Main. I spoke earlier thanking the
people of Harbour Main for electing me as their MHA. It's been approximately 17
months since my election. Being an MHA, as I indicated earlier – and I feel
strongly about this – it is a great honour and also with it holds great
responsibility and great duty.
Mr. Chair, when I meet with my constituents, when I
hear from my constituents – I guess the most important thing that I've learned
so far is that we have to listen to our constituents. It's very important to
listen and to try to understand their concerns. That's a way for us – and it is
for me – to find my voice. It gives me the leadership that I need to speak on
behalf of my constituents.
The first issue that I'd like to speak about now
relates to seniors, specifically low-income seniors. I spoke about this issue
last week, Mr. Chair; actually, I spoke about this in a petition. I had been
hearing from a couple of my seniors in the last preceding two or three weeks.
What I heard was quite disturbing. It was very troubling to me.
I heard from one man and his family, a 70-year-old man
who had to have 10 extractions. He wasn't enrolled in the plan. He was a
low-income senior; he had worked his entire life and now was living on less than
$20,000 a year. He was finding it difficult to pay bills; he was finding it
difficult to buy groceries without the added expense of dental work.
His family were trying their best to assist him and to
support him as much as they could. They were very active and very involved in
trying to assist their father, but they struggled and were very saddened by what
they would have to see. They would watch him, the tears rolling down his face
with pain. He'd actually been continuously on antibiotics for the condition that
he had in his mouth with respect to his teeth. There was no help, Mr. Chair. He
was one example of many that are falling through the cracks with respect to the
lack of dental care. I know that there is a program. We know that there is a
program, I'm not disputing that, but what I'm saying is that there are people
like this 70-year-old gentleman that I have spoken to and his family.
Another 67-year-old that I had spoken to indicated that
he had to have 19 extractions. He did manage to get the money together by
borrowing it. He had to borrow the money. It was $2,750 and he did have the
procedure eventually completed. Actually he was having the procedure completed
on the 29th of this month. Mr. Chair, he was on a limited income of
approximately $1,100 per month. These are two real cases in my district. These
are individuals that really have been suffering, that really have been falling
through the cracks.
I wanted to talk about this lack of an adequate dental
care plan. Mr. Chair, I want to point out that there are people, not only in my
rural district but also in urban areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are
doing without the accessible, affordable dental care that they need.
I also pointed out that there have been studies that
have been completed, Mr. Chair. I referenced one study that has been completed
by the Ontario government that has shown that having no public dental care has
cost the government. It costs the government and it costs the health care system
millions and millions of dollars in the long term, but when we have
short-sighted goals or short-sighted objectives, we lose sight of that.
Why, when we look at – instead of going for regular
dental checkups and treatment, people end up in our doctors' offices, they end
up in our emergency rooms. They end up even as hospital admissions due to severe
dental and oral health issues that occur. Then we see pain and infections that
result. We also are very well aware that serious dental and oral health issues
can and do affect a person's overall health. That's not disputed; that's a fact.
We know overall health – physically, emotionally and mentally – is impacted when
we do not have proper dental health care.
Maybe, Mr. Chair, the government does save money in the
short term they're going to say. I raised this issue and one of my colleagues as
well had raised this previously. It was the Member for Mount Pearl North. He has
raised this issue with respect to dental care for seniors and low-income people
in the past.
I recall reading the
Hansard and the response by the Minister of Health. His response
was: We're in the middle of the pack in terms of provinces. He also said that we
don't have the fiscal ability; we're in fiscal crisis. We all know that times
are tough and this is a very difficult time, but saving money in the short term
by eliminating this adult basic dental program costs so much, much, much more in
the long term by not having adequate dental care.
In addition to all of these things that it costs – the
overall physical, emotional and mental health of our seniors – you know what,
they feel forgotten and I'll tell you why. After I presented last Thursday, I
received a call from a person, a senior, who heard the petition. He heard the
response from the Minister of Health and he said: The minister said to you that
you were being selective; he was being selective. After I heard what he said I
went to try to find if there were other ways to appeal and to go. There is
nowhere for me to go. He said to me he was misleading to people like me because
the individual, the senior, went to look and find what he could access and there
was nothing for him. He was really frustrated and very disappointed about that,
and angry, too. He said: The current government has forgotten about us seniors.
I found that really troubling, Mr. Chair, because our
seniors, as has been stated by so many of us, have given so much. Many of them
have worked all their lives, they're struggling to make ends meet and they're
not being heard. Hopefully we can bring some further attention to this issue for
our most vulnerable population, our seniors.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, my former student and the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor – Buchans complimented me on being a passionate teacher. I thank
him for that. I can't say I was the best of teachers. I would say that I plodded
along and I did my best at the job, no doubt about it. I would say that the
Member probably made it to where he is in spite of me; nevertheless, I will say
that.
I do thank him for that because part of it is as a
teacher you get to see your students later on when they're still calling you Sir
or Mr. Dinn or whatever else. It takes a little while to break out of that
habit, but it's always good to see your students, how they turned out, where
they've gone and the amazing things that they've done, far exceeding what any
teacher could hope in many cases.
The Member for Cape St. Francis talked about – like my
focus would be on teachers and that the focus needs to be on students. I can
tell you, Mr. Chair, the focus of every teacher is the student. That is the
centre of their life, in many cases, well beyond the school day.
I can tell you that what I look for is – and I said
this, the teaching conditions of teachers are the learning conditions of
students. What I want for teachers and students is basically to get through this
year safely, to get through this year mentally and physically healthy and
intact. Spend what we need to get through this year safely, invest the money,
put the resources in place and get there basically without burning out. That's
the key thing right now. That's what it's been about.
Let's face it; this is an unprecedented year that we
have to get through. That's been the basis of everything that I fought for and
take liberty – not only I, but also, Mr. Chair, you in your capacity as
Education critic, we both have fought for that. We've met with the minister, we
brought suggestions to him. We've done it across party lines for the one purpose
here because we both come from the school system. We both know the realities of
the school system even in a year that didn't have COVID and we know the
challenges that are there in starting it up and we know the resource deficits
that can take place, that are there.
I hadn't planned to speak, of course, until – in
raising these questions, I get accused of wanting students to have half a school
year, for students basically going on a rotational basis. That was taken out of
context. Because when the Member for Bonavista and I approached the minister, we
knew there were two weeks left before school. The busing had not been resolved.
It was still going to leave thousands of students without a bus. It was going to
be disruptive to parents and to students. It was also going to put an enormous
amount of pressure on schools when they were also trying to get used to the new
COVID-19 regulations.
The comment we had suggested at this time, at least for
September, why don't we try a rotational or a shift system until we can get the
bus situation resolved. Here's the thing, no one need go without a bus. That was
the key thing. No one would have to worry about not having a seat on a bus.
Administrators would not have to try to figure who gets on a bus and who
doesn't. Instead, I can think of principals who spent two days individually
emailing parents about if they didn't get on the bus this year and what they
need to do. They tied up valuable human resources in that administrative duty.
It wasn't about half a year; it was about how do we get
through this. I thought it was a pretty constructive approach. Until we do a few
things, we get the busing situation solved, which should have been resolved long
before that, so that the new measures that were in place, teachers and schools
and parents and students had an opportunity to get used to the system and the
new normal, such as it was. That's where that idea came from.
The minister asked for ideas, we gave them.
Unfortunately, that wasn't one of them that met with – I don't know what the
reason was, but it would have saved a lot of anxiety for a lot of people. It
would have given everyone time to adjust. That's where that idea came from.
Then, to be told that I'm going madly in pursuit of all
problems. I tell you, I don't have to look far. If I was looking for problems
and there were none there, I wouldn't have anything to report, would I? But the
fact is, as I've already pointed out, problems do exist, and if problems don't
come to the forefront, Mr. Chair, they will not be resolved.
I can tell you that it's always been about resources.
I'm going to go back to full-day kindergarten, which I supported. I think it's a
fantastic idea, but at the time it was brought in, Mr. Chair, it was brought in
on the backs of the rest of the system: 140-odd teachers or so were removed from
the system and they were put back into the full-day kindergarten. I also saw,
when you have class size that's adequate, how well full-day kindergarten,
play-based learning can work.
I remember visiting a school – and that was most of my
job as NLTA president, to visit schools. I didn't just talk to the officials; I
went to the schools. I spoke to teachers. I spoke to the administrators, the
school councils, the teachers, to find out what's going on there, and parents,
too.
I remember in this one kindergarten class – in
contrast, a full-day kindergarten class in town and in this small classroom in
Central Newfoundland – with this teacher in Central Newfoundland. We were
talking. I said: How are you finding the full-day kindergarten, the play-based
learning? She had nine students, but what was fascinating to me is that a
student came up to her and asked her a question. She said, did you see that? How
he learned that concept. He had that concept nailed down. Right off the bat, she
could put that down. That was an evaluation. It wasn't a formal test, Mr. Chair,
but right there she could say this child had achieved an outcome.
That's what you can accomplish in a classroom that's
small and has a ratio small enough so that teachers can actually do that
intensive one-on-one, because not all children come with the privilege that my
grandchildren, that my children had, where they had the resources they needed.
Not all children come with a full stomach. Not all children come adequately
clothed. Not all children know where they're going to stay that night,
especially if they've been kicked out of their homes or if they're dealing with
violence and so on and so forth. I can tell you that.
To me, teachers want more than a letter from a minister
of Education saying how great a job they're doing. They want to see the
resources they have so that they can do their job, so they can take care of the
children and their needs. I can tell you that's been the primary function of any
teachers, and I'm sure the Chair would know this. Teachers do so much in the
school system, from organizing breakfasts for their students, the breakfast
program or the school lunch program. Not because they have to. It's not even in
their contract. Actually, it says you don't have to. It's a voluntary activity.
What they do is they see a need and they reach out and
they try to resolve it. If that means they have to have a fundraiser to get some
extra for the students, they'll do it. If it means that you have to go out and
spend your precious time, I'm going to pick up all the supplies I need or we
need for a school breakfast program or a school lunch program, or to give that
little extra then we're doing to do it.
It's not just a job. I can tell you that from my own
time. I never thought of my teaching profession as a job. I loved it. I enjoyed
it. I don't think there was ever a day that I can say I went to school thinking:
Holy crap, when will 3 o'clock come? I've never had that experience.
When my daughter was trying to decide about teaching, I
said: Go into it because you want to. It will eat you alive if you don't love
working with children or if you don't love working with people. But I can tell
you the rewards: it's not the income; it's not the salary; it's not the two
months but I can tell you when you see a child succeed, when you see them grasp
a concept, when 30 years down the road you find out you made a difference,
that's gold. Give teachers the resources they need.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I get an opportunity to speak again in the House and I
was hoping the Minister of Transportation was going to be here so I could have
another –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Oh,
good. I wanted to have another chance to chat with him. Actually, it's all good
because earlier today he talked about the valuable work that the employees of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Department do and I just want to talk
about the great work that the employees in Transportation and Infrastructure do
in my district.
I have a great relationship with the employees in
Transportation and Infrastructure in my district. They do a really valuable job
and it's a tough job. But I do want to even put forward a little recommendation
coming from the staff on where they see there's an opportunity to perhaps use
money more efficiently. That has to do with the fact about the number of actual
supervisors that are employed directly in that particular depot.
In fact, if you were take an analysis – and I challenge
the minister to do this – turn around and look at how much money you're spending
on overtime and callbacks, when it relates to the current supervisors that we
have out there, and do an analysis to see if it's possible to say that maybe if
we brought someone back in the wintertime on a temporary basis to be able to
help handle the pressures that they get – I'm sure the former minister probably
got loads of calls about snow clearing. These people, the territory that they
have to cover and the amount of calls they get, I'm just thinking that there may
be an opportunity to provide a service in a more efficient way and perhaps, at
the end of the day, even save a little bit of money. I mean, that's what we're
all about. Today, I mean, this bill is about a billion-dollar borrowing.
I also want to talk about in the Estimates we talked a
little bit about shared services. The former minister of Finance talked about
that a lot. Didn't see a lot of what actually was happening, but talked about it
a lot. I have an interest in that and I think there are tremendous opportunities
there for government wide – I don't think we need to wait for a team or a task
force to expand on that. I know in the Estimates I was promised that there would
be a report come back to see actually what has been implemented to date and
where we are with it. I remember when I was involved in that process years ago,
the reassurances that we gave to people throughout the entire province, this
wasn't about packing people up and putting them in a DRL bus and moving them all
into Mount Pearl somewhere. It was about people being able to work from their
current locations but doing work more efficiently.
For example, in health care we've had buyers that would
buy the full alphabet. They would be buying from A to Z. Every single different
health authority was doing that. I think it might be changed now. I'm not sure.
That's why I'm looking forward to the update. But the concept of simply having
someone become a content expert, so they buy A to C and D to F, they can do that
for the entire province, no matter where they're located. It's more of a virtual
headquarters as opposed to needing to have a physical building and putting
everybody or relocate everybody.
When we think about 500,000 of us and we have all of
these separate payroll systems. I mean, government pays the school board that
pays the teachers, yet we have four health authorities with four separate
payroll systems. We have the college – I'm not sure if the college is on the
government system or not, but the university has a separate system and a lot of
other ABCs do. Those types of changes don't impact the delivery of services.
That's the key. We don't want to talk about how we take away the front lines; we
talk about how we do back of office and consolidate.
I know in New Brunswick some years ago they went to a
different model and they moved towards that big concept, created their own
corporation, own department. I think it even has its own minister. I don't know
where that is and I don't know enough about it to be able to say how effective
it has been but it's been done.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
WAKEHAM:
New
Brunswick.
They kind of took three different groups and put them
together. It requires some investment in technology but it's clearly an
opportunity that exists for our province that as we said and as I alluded to, I
think there's been some work done on it. I just don't know the full extent of
that work but I think it's something that I think we could do.
I also wanted to sing a song, similar to what the
deputy minister was quoting from the last time from the Barenaked Ladies that
said, “If I Had $1,000,000.” Now if I had a million dollars –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Sing it.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
I
don't think I'll sing it. I don't think I'd want to spend it on a report. I'd
want to fix my road in Cold Brook. That would only take $200,000 of it and I'd
still have $800,000. I'd want to look at that issue with erosion, and I'm
looking down at the Minister of Municipalities right now, and say I'd want to
take a look at that gentleman whose house is about to fall into the ocean to see
what we might be able to do there. Maybe I'd spend a couple of thousand on that
one. Might cost me $10,000 or $20,000 on that one.
I know government is all about making choices and there
are tough choices to make but at the end of the day the real choice is how do we
help the people of the province and how do we invest in the people of the
province? How do we make their lives better?
My colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans alluded
to the locked-in pension and I think all of us can agree that there's a serious
issue out there and we need to try to find a way to move that forward. If that
means that we have to stay extra in November to get that done, to get that
legislation in place, then I think we're all prepared to do it. I know the
minister alluded to it. She's not here now but she had alluded to being able to
try to move that forward. I'm hoping we can do that and try to figure out a way
of finding a way to do some of that and free up some opportunities for people to
get on with that.
In my next segment, depending on how far we go tonight,
I'll have an opportunity to help you and help the Minister of Industry and
Energy express his frustration with the federal government and get a little bit
of that out on the floor tonight, hopefully, so he can talk about it. The
Premier says that $320 million is just the start. I think we all agree that it's
not enough.
I want to say don't be afraid to show that; don't be
afraid to be upset with the federal government. At the end of the day, when you
look at the billions of dollars that are being given out in other ways, yes, we
recognize the $320 million is going to be put to use, but don't be afraid to be
upset with them. If they can give $200 million to a casino in Ontario, then they
had better step up and find a different way of giving us a little bit more. When
you see over a million dollars – or almost a billion dollars – going to a plant
remake, then I think we could do with a little more.
That's not to be critical but that's to say, you guys,
get up there and give it to them because we need you to give it to them. We need
you to be fighting to say that's not enough. We need to find different ways. We
appreciate everything that's being done, it's a hard job, but we need to fight
for more and we have to find a way to do that. I look forward to being involved
in that. Hopefully, we can help somewhere along the way, as a House of Assembly,
as a bunch of people sitting here, that we all can find a way to put forward our
case to the federal government to say, yes, it's a good start. I think the
Premier alluded to that and I will keep him to that, that it is only a start.
Getting his federal counterparts to agree that it's
only a start is a challenge, but I have no doubt that people on that side are
just as much concerned about our oil and gas as the people are on this side. We
all share that, we want to fight for that and we will find a way to do it.
Whatever we have to do to make that happen, well, let's do it.
The Minister of Transportation is here now. Minister, I
was just talking about the road in Cold Brook.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
He
was listening.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Okay, he was listening.
MR.
BRAGG:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Minister. Already paved, it needs to be resurfaced.
MR.
BRAGG:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Right, it needs to be resurfaced – $200,000.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, my time is up. I'll conclude.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the chance to speak here once again.
Again, I want to thank the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans District for
giving me the opportunity to represent them. They are constantly supporting me.
I thank the people from across the province for supporting me.
I've gotten hundreds of messages from people out in
Western Canada who support me as well, because they see the passion that I have.
I come from that so I know what it's like. I know first-hand what it's like. I
know it seems I can get heated or passionate sometimes here or out and about. I
guarantee you it comes from the heart. I'm only trying to do what's best for the
province, like the rest are trying to do here as well.
Also, Mr. Chair, if I may thank the essential workers
that, once again, helped us through the pandemic, especially those ones that are
on the Dominion picket line late at night, having their fires, staying out in
the cold, staying out in the rain. That's 1,500 people that are displaced now
getting their strike pay. They just want to go back to work.
My heart goes out to them as they're trying to find
their way through this. I pray to God that some sort of conclusion comes of this
soon so they can get back to work. I know that's what they want as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
It's horrible. They're just trying to do their thing.
Mr. Chair, the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand
Falls-Windsor is supposed to be the first community hospice in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We're hoping that it's going to see some traction and open up here in
the new year. We have some hope. It's going to give a lot of families a chance
to be with their loved ones as they die with dignity.
I'm sure we all know somebody or have had somebody that
died without dignity. I know, myself, I lost my grandmother in 2014. She died on
the cluttered bedroom floor of her house because there was no space at the
hospital for her, so they had to keep her home.
This hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor is going to be
state of the art. The building is already there; they just need the renovations.
You're going to be able to bring your pets in there, your family members. There
are going to be bedrooms off to the side for your family members to stay in and
stay with you. Pictures, colours, pillows, blankets: It's supposed to help you
in your last 30 days so you can move on to the next stage of wherever that may
and give people a really comfortable death with dignity. Also, their families
will have some closure as well. We're really happy about that.
The timber rights throughout Central Newfoundland,
we've been cutting wood in there for over a hundred years. I revert to John
Shearing, a man 63 years old, been cutting wood since he was six years old and
can't get the permits that he wants, but he has to watch 20 truckloads of wood
pass by each day. I have faith in the new minister that took on this role that
he's going to work with myself and the Member for Exploits to hopefully come up
with some sort of plan for these people that are there.
If you look at the proportion of wood that they want to
cut compared to what's being cut out there, it's a fraction. Their whole world
has been turned upside down since Abitibi has left, but they should still be
able to cut their wood as well. I'm hoping to meet with the minister and come up
with some sort of action plan that will see them be able to cut their wood like
their ancestors did and so on and so forth.
There are some good things happening throughout my
district. Marathon Gold are right on. Matt Manson, CEO and president –
absolutely fantastic. I know a lot of work has gone into it. It's going to be
great for our area. It's going to bring 460 jobs. We're very excited about that.
Already this company has given tens of thousands of
dollars to the small communities and helped them with their infrastructure
plans. There has been a bridge up there for snowmobiles that they fixed up for
them. They asked each and every individual municipality for a plan that they
want to see happen from Marathon Gold – what do they want from Marathon Gold.
Of course, the number one thing on that are local jobs.
I've talked to Matt Manson, the CEO and president there, and he's assured me
that yes, they will be all local jobs. That's absolutely fantastic. We're
looking forward to a 13-year mine life and three million ounces of gold. Gold is
up over $1,900 an ounce again today, so that's a great thing for my area, Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans District, and for the province as a whole. We're very
happy about that. We're looking forward to it.
There is some work that needs to be done on the roads
up there throughout the Buchans Highway and whatnot. If we're going to be
bringing in big players we want to makes sure that we have the infrastructure to
support what they want to do up there, because we don't want anybody to get
turned away or whatnot. They seem to be quite happy with the place and the
people that are up there. I talked to the mayors – every single mayor in my
district – on a monthly basis, if not every couple of weeks. I keep in contact
with them and they're happy with what's going on up there too. That is one great
thing that's happening in my district and we hope that mine life gets extended.
We are truly thankful that's going to happen up there for us.
We're talking about trying to get some money back in
the coffers of the families. The school trips that were cancelled, upon the
government's request, of course – and it was the right thing to do – that was
six, seven months ago. These families haven't seen a dime back yet. These
families are still waiting on their money to come back from Explorica.
I was hoping that the government would have a little
bit more hands-on approach to going after Explorica, going after the insurance
company and trying to get this money back for these people. If it were me
personally, I would say: Explorica, either step up or it's going to be tough to
do business in this province when things get back to normal I can tell you that.
The right thing to do is give these parents and these families their money back.
There are parents with two kids that are waiting for $6,000 to come back in
their pockets that they spent. That's just simply not right. It's not right at
all. That's some money now that they could definitely use.
A little bit of innovation going on in my district.
Mike Goodyear, he owns the funeral homes in Central Newfoundland. He is trying
to bring in a new system, it would be the first system that's east of Quebec,
it's called alkaline hydrolysis. What that does, basically, is it's a chemical
process to cremate the bodies of the dead. What it does, basically, is every
cremation that happens puts 525 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. If we're
looking for a greener economy here, what better way to look at this innovation,
maybe, and bring it in? Like I say, it's gone across Canada now into quite a few
places. I would invite anybody to take a look if you want, it's called alkaline
hydrolysis. It's supposed to be a pretty good system and, like I say, if we're
looking for a little bit of a greener planet, that's something that we can do.
Over the past year and a half, I've truly enjoyed my
job and I've truly enjoyed working with the people of Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans. They're a great bunch. They have accepted me as their MHA. I do the
best work that I can and they know I do. I'll continue to do the best work that
I can. I leave myself as accessible as I can possibly be and I'm always around.
I enjoy talking to the people and seniors.
I got to say one thing about the young people, the high
school students, I think that we got to talk to them more. These high school
students are some of the smartest people I've ever met and they teach me a lot
of stuff. They are the future of this province. Right now, Newfoundland and
Labrador is leased to us, we're renting Newfoundland and Labrador from them.
If I was renting an apartment I wouldn't destroy it and
try to give it back to the landlord. So I want to make sure that when we're all
done here and our time has come and gone, when these young people get
Newfoundland and Labrador it's in a lot better shape than it is right now.
That's one hope that I have for my son Declan, who's 15, and my other son
Xander, who's 13. They're two good boys and two smart boys. I want to make sure
that we leave a good place for them.
I'll just leave on one thing, Mr. Chair. We banter back
and forth all day, we have fun with it and it gets a little bit heated
sometimes. There's not one person in this House of Assembly that I don't like
and I don't respect. I have respect and I love everybody here. I know that
everybody is trying to do their best. The biggest problem I have with the
current government is the lack of, what I call, action when it comes to the
federal government in Ottawa. We have a federal Resources minister that has done
nothing, or very little to nothing.
Mr. Chair, I've had to fight for everything my whole
life and I mean literally fight. I grew up on the rigs. I used to be a paramedic
and firefighter as well. Nobody has given me a thing in life. I've always had to
go get it myself. There are times I had to fight, and when I say fight, I mean
tooth and nail fight. Sometimes that's what has to be done, so when I look
across and I see that we've been talking to the federal government; we're
trying. When they say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease sort of thing,
those are true words. We need to speak up more.
When I say get up to Ottawa, we need to get up there
and talk to the prime minister and tell him this is not good enough; $320
million, it's fantastic money; it's only going to go so far. You see the
billions come out, like my colleague has said, to the rest of Canada; b'ys, we
have to fight tooth and nail. Everybody has to be on the same page. If we're
silent and if we stay status quo, what you see is what you get, and that's all
it's going to be.
I'm sorry if I get a little bit passionate sometimes
and I joust back and forth, but I have nothing but love for everybody here. I
just want to make sure we're on all the same page and we're all going to get
what we need for this province. We all have to dig, all 40 of us, and let them
know that this is not good enough and we will not be pushed off to sea. We are a
province in the greatest country in the world and we need to fight for what we
have to get.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a privilege to speak again. I'd be remiss if I
didn't start speaking about the mining industry and how important it is to the
provincial economy and how important it is to my district especially. I know
some other Members are historically and getting back into it. It's good to see
all the gold mining that's going on in Central. That's absolutely fantastic. Of
all the minerals in the world, probably the most sought after is gold. It's
great to see quite the abundance of it in Central.
It's an opportunity. It's a good-paying job. It's a
very labour-intensive job. Statistically, it's one of the jobs that actually
employs the most people through capital and that. If you're looking to hire a
lot people, the mining industry is a great way for long-term, sustainable jobs –
very good-paying jobs. I came out of the mining industry and it's a very
rewarding career. It's great that we have that opportunity in this province.
It's a changing industry, like I alluded to before,
when it comes to technology. We have the bright minds in people in this province
to actually take the opportunities that we have from our academia, from the
university and the college, and take that opportunity and apply it into the
mining industry. That's where we need to continue to put a lot of investment,
time and energy, into our research and development as we move and transition
into a more technology-based mining industry.
There are a lot of players in the game. There's a lot
of opportunity there. I encourage this government to take the opportunities to
invest in the mining industry, invest in the technology side of it. We have a
lot of existing mines that are underutilized that we can make investments and
take these opportunities to employ more people.
I know in some cases, with some of the transitioning
into more technology-based and more innovation stuff, sometimes the mining
industry thinks that they are going to reduce some labour costs, but turn around
and end up having to hire more people because that technology does need a skill
set that is not currently existing in the industry. Now we're seeing that they
make a motion towards some automation or towards some new and improved
technology in the mining process and turn around and actually hire extra people
because of this change.
We are in a new world but we're still requiring a
similar amount of base when it comes to employment. What I'd like to see in the
future is more emphasis on investments in the development of technology in the
mining industry. With that actually comes another issue that we seem to face,
the issue around power supply and the need for more electricity for the mining
industry.
It's great to see that with this province we have the
capacity to make sure that we reduce the amount of carbon that we burn by
offsetting it with the use of electricity because we do have an abundance of it.
We have a massive abundance of electricity in Labrador and eventually, with all
the flaws corrected, we'll see that the Island will be able to access some of
this.
I encourage the government to put the investments into
connecting these mines to the grid so that we can reduce our carbon footprint in
the mining industry and we move towards a more green mining industry where we
utilize the power of hydroelectricity versus burning bunker and diesel. That's
an encouragement I make because we have the power here, let's use it for our own
means.
I know my colleagues there as well have talked about
secondary and tertiary processing. The ability to take the minerals that we
actually mine out of the ground and make a finished product or semi-finished
product out of it so that we have the edge in the market; we take our own
resources and maximize the potential of what we can do with it. I know I
probably won't see it tomorrow or the next day, to see a blast furnace somewhere
on the Island or in Labrador, but let's explore all options that we have when it
comes to secondary and tertiary processing in the mineral market.
When you have the likes of Tesla and all those big
players kind of coming and sniffing around the industry and stuff now, maybe we
can convince them to do secondary and tertiary processing before those minerals
leave our province. Let's take these opportunities and when life gives you
lemons, let's make lemonade. Maybe we can see what we can do when it comes to
these extra processing steps with our minerals in this province.
As passionate as we are as a province, we like to
purchase our own goods, so I'm sure everyone in this province would love to have
a gold necklace made from gold from Central Newfoundland. This is what we need,
to continue to look at all options that are there when it comes to secondary and
tertiary processing. I'm sure we had many visions in the past when we were
hauling out billions of tons of iron ore out of Labrador West. I'm sure it was
brought to the former minister's attention sometime: Why don't we have a blast
furnace?
It's all about markets, too, but we do have other
minerals than iron: nickel, copper, zinc, lithium, rare earths, even right down
to granites and marbles and all that stuff. We should maximize on everything we
have and we should maximize on the potential. If we can convince at least one
company just to stay – I want to do secondary or tertiary processing in the
province – that's one victory. That's jobs. That's well-paying jobs that someone
can hang their hat on.
We need to keep always looking at what potentials are
around and make sure that we make the right infrastructure investments.
Sometimes it's not always necessarily writing a blank cheque to a company;
sometimes it's a power line here, a road there, a bridge over a brook. These are
sometimes the little, small things that make a bigger difference at the end of
the day when it comes to encouraging sustainable development in our province.
Unfortunately, minerals don't grow back, but maximize the potential of what we
have now before they're all gone and we say, oh shucks, maybe we should've put
that goldsmith in or something like that.
Even small investments can lead to a big victory at the
end of the day. We need to make sure we see where we're coming from and we see
where we're going and that we maximize the potential of our minerals before they
leave our shores. That's a thing we would like to see more of.
I remember my dad saying many times about all of the
protests when they were going to build a pellet plant in Quebec versus one in
Labrador. That was a very contentious thing, but that's a primary processing
that – if you look at the pelletization now, that's 300, 400 jobs alone in
Labrador West. It's just pelletizing ore. Even one pelletizing machine not built
in Labrador versus over in Quebec, that's jobs that were never made or never
lost. That's a thing that we need to make sure we have the opportunities, we
have the resources and the infrastructure because when it comes to mining,
infrastructure is king.
We need to make sure that we make these investments
when the opportunity arises so we can maximize job potential, but also maximize
production potential and make sure that goods and services that leave this
province are maximized to the benefit of our people. We have a lot of potential.
We have a lot of smart ideas. We have a lot of smart people around this province
and a lot of very intelligent people, even in this room. So we want to make sure
we seize the day, seize the potential and seize the opportunities of what's
around.
It's nice to see that the mining industry continues to
make investments and make announcements. We still have prospectors and junior
miners scouring every rock and cliff and cave here in the province to make sure
that we know what we have in the ground and where it is. So one day we'll see
it, and that's good.
As a famous poet and doctor once said: Thy splendid
task shall be done. Our splendid task is to seize every opportunity that our
province has for its people and maximize it for the benefit of the people of
this province, because that is our task at the end of the day. It's the task to
make sure people are well employed, looked after and we are here for everybody.
A good paying job and a rewarding job is something we should give to every
person we can and make sure we have an abundance of it to retain people because
out-migration is probably the biggest pitfall we have right now.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, the Member for
Burgeo - La Poile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into my comments, congratulations on
running a tight ship here tonight. I appreciate the order you've brought to the
House.
I guess what I'm going to do is just provide a few
comments. Ten minutes seems like a long time sometimes and sometimes it does not
seem long enough. I've made a bunch of notes here. The goal I have is just to –
again, I'm going to try my best to provide a coherent narrative of where we are
and sort of what I've taken out of this. I doubt very highly there's anybody
watching right now, but at the same time we all know that everything we say is
recorded in Hansard and everything –
you put it out there and that's why sometimes you always try to be careful.
One of the reasons I'm here is to explain, we are here
debating Bill 47, which is the amendment to the Loan Act, which I would point
out to those watching is an annual bill. It comes with the budget talking about
the authorization for loans, basically. I can say, to provide some more context,
I'm one of the few in the House that I have had the opportunity to sit on both
sides of the House. I've had an opportunity to sit in Cabinet, to sit here, to
answer questions, to ask questions, to debate, to do all this. I've been through
a few of these now. Not as many as the Minister of Education but a few. So I
fully understand what it's like to sit and to ask questions and to debate bills.
It was funny because tonight, actually, I stepped out
for a moment and was talking to a person. They said: Where are you? I said:
We're in the House. Why are you in the House? I said: We're still debating a
bill that goes with the budget. He said: Why are you debating that? I thought
everybody voted on the budget. I said: We have. They said: Didn't everybody vote
in favour of the budget? I said: Yes, everybody has voted in favour of the
budget. Why are you still there? To this person I said: That's the question that
I cannot answer, I don't know.
I've had an opportunity to look at this. I've also sat
on that side and there have been different times over the course of debate where
you hold up a bill, you hold up progress, you try to delay a bill for various
reasons because you wanted to effect change, because you want to add something
to it, to delete something from it or to not see it become law or to pass. The
process for that is called a filibuster.
We haven't seen filibusters like we used to but when I
think about the process that we're here tonight, this is a bill that everybody
is going to vote in favour of. This is a budget that, for the first time I've
ever seen, everybody has voted in favour of it unanimously. The reason I say all
this is to provide context for those that may read these comments.
We're here now and I don't say there's anybody here
that's sat through a longer debate. There's a few of us. We've been through some
long debates. It's not that, but I answered the question for that person. It's
11 at night and we've been debating Bill 47 for five hours. A bill for which
there will be no amendment. A bill for a budget that has already passed
unanimously. A bill that will not be changed and will be supported unanimously.
The reason that I bring all this up is because I can
tell you what does not get done when you're here debating this. If there was a
cogent reason advanced as to why we were here, I'd say that's what we're here to
do; we're here to discuss or to debate. But like any money bill – this is what
they call a money bill, meaning you can talk about anything – people have an
opportunity to talk about a multitude of things.
We've heard Members of the Opposition talk about many
things. I guess that's one of the things I want to point out, the contrast,
sometimes, in the comments that I see. I reference my friend from Grand
Falls-Windsor who speaks very passionately about oil and gas. The one comment I
took out of his speech tonight was he said we all have to be on the same page.
To that, I concur; I absolutely agree with everything that he says when we talk
about being on the same page.
At the same time we talk about oil and gas, I can tell
you there was no work being done – unable to engage in a conversation with
Suncor tonight, unable to engage in a conversation with Husky, unable to engage
in the work in the department with the staff around Come By Chance. The reason I
come back to the same page part is that during the debate I've heard various
contrasts from Members opposite. So I'll point out just a couple to show that
we're all on the same page. I'll point out to my friend from Grand Falls-Windsor
there was no contrast from you, there was no contrast from the Member.
I come to one thing. I've heard literally here in this
debate tonight one Member for Mount Pearl North say we are over paving roads in
this province. Why should we pave rural roads that have no future? That is a
comment that is in Hansard. I look
around this room and I see a lot of us that live in rural areas; in fact, we've
heard multiple times during Question Period and in various of forms of debate
that there's not enough paving done. Yet there's a Member in the caucus who says
there's too much paving done.
Now, at the same time, during this debate tonight,
right after that, the Member for Stephenville said I need Cold Brook paved. What
I'm saying is that there's a contrast during this debate. We're talking about
being on the same page, we're talking about trying to progress to move things
through this filibuster, yet in this one debate we've seen opposite sides on
just that one issue.
I'll refer to another one: Multiple Members on the
other side have let me know in no uncertain terms their support for the oil and
gas industry. They've made that clear. That's no secret and we support that.
I've heard multiple Members talk about we need to find a way to support, we need
to go after Ottawa or we need to do this, we need to invest.
I point out that at the same time – this, I will say,
did not come from today's debate; it came from yesterday's – a Member for the PC
caucus said that we shouldn't take dollars out of the oil business and put it
back in the oil business. That's not diversification. We should be starting new
sectors. At the same time that I've heard the Leader of the PCs say the $320
million should be spent right on Husky, I've heard other Members say $320
million should be spent on Come By Chance. Now I see other Members saying the
money should go towards diversification because putting money back into oil is
not diversification.
Again, the question I ask you, Mr. Chair, is that we're
here talking about – and I've already told you that I concur with the point made
by my friend that we're all on the same page, but clearly there are a lot of
different pages going on there. It brings me back to the bigger point. The
bigger point is that we are here – and I am all for free-flowing debate and
exchange of ideas. But right now what we are doing – the definition of
filibuster is to hold up progress – is we are holding up progress of issues and
policies that we want to advance for the betterment of this province. I have yet
to hear a single reason as to why we should do that. I've yet to hear the reason
as to why we would sit here and debate a bill for a budget that was unanimously
supported, just so they don't feel left out.
I've heard the Leader of the NDP, at the same time that
she's concurring and standing up and supporting the budget, uses the term
“egregious.” I say, Mr. Chair, that you can't have it both ways. You can't stand
up and say this is an egregious budget and we question all your policies as a
government; we think you need to change – again, as the Member for Mount Pearl
North said, we need a change in governance and there's irresponsibility going on
over there – and then stand in your place and support the budgetary policy of
the government.
I come back because I have a minute left, and I say to
the person I was speaking to tonight: Yes, I don't know why I am still here
doing this. What I can tell you is that I concur with a lot of what the Members
opposite say about we need to find ways to work on this industry because we all
have these constituents right now that are going through a tough time. I'm
there, I want to do that as well and, thankfully, I'm able to email them some
while I'm here.
Right now, I would be interested if one of my
colleagues on the other side could tell me: Why are we here involved in a
filibuster on a budget that's been supported and why are we not working on
something that might further the interests that benefit all of our constituents?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Mr.
Chair, I'm going to answer the hon. Member's question.
I'm here to represent the beautiful District of Cape
St. Francis –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
–
and the beautiful people in the District of Cape St. Francis.
Mr. Chair, I applaud the Member for his comments a few
minutes ago, but I tell you, I sat through filibusters. This is not a
filibuster. This is a debate. We're in a debate. Filibusters are over.
Filibusters were when we were here all night long. I sat here with your dad, I
sat here with three Members of the Liberal Party and I applauded them for what
they did because they stayed here all night long and they kept to the point.
We're here tonight to let the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador know that we care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
We
care about people losing their homes. We care about seniors that are locked in
their homes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
We
care about what students have done in this province.
I'll tell the hon. Member what we're here for and I'll
gladly tell him. We're here to do the best job we can for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and we're going to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I listened to my colleagues tonight and I listened to everyone on this side of
the House. You on that side of the House have the opportunity. I'm sorry if you
feel bad about sitting in your seats at 12 o'clock because I do not. I will sit
here all day and all night for the people of Newfoundland to get their points
across, what their concerns are. That's what we're doing here tonight.
Every Member on this side of the House tonight spoke
about their constituents. We're in a very difficult time and we know it. We go
through budgets – yes, we all agreed to this budget. We agreed to this budget
because probably two-thirds of it was already passed and we're in a situation
where we can't be holding up paying people the money that they deserve in the
public service. So that's why we're agreeing to it.
Do we agree with everything in this budget? No. Do we
want to see things changed in this budget? Yes, we do, but we want to be able to
express our opinions. We want to be able to talk for the constituents in Cape
St. Francis, the constituents in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. You did a great
job tonight and so did every Member here.
We want to talk about education, like the Member for
St. John's Centre did, talk about teachers. I spoke earlier today. I spoke about
how lucky we are to live in this province, how we have seniors out there that
are paying the price for not being able to go to a bingo or go to a chicken
dinner or whatever they do. I spoke here tonight for my constituents. Everyone
in this House spoke of their constituents and that's what we're doing.
I'm going to talk a little bit now about essential
workers. Who before this pandemic knew that a person that worked at Sobeys,
Dominion, Walmart and those places were essential workers? I have to be honest
with you. I didn't consider them essential workers. Do I now? Yes, I do.
Do I support the people around the picket lines at
Dominion because they want to get paid a fair wage and don't want the $2 that
was taken? They deserved it. We're still in a pandemic; I don't know why they're
not getting their $2 that they were getting all along. Do I support them? I do.
Do you know why I support them? Because they went to work. A lot of them did go
to work when it was hard times here and people had no idea what was going to
happen. Nobody had any idea of how this was going to go out, how people were
going to be affected.
Down in the United States, we're after seeing hundreds
of thousands of people die. We're very fortunate in this province; we had a
couple of people that died – very unfortunate for those families. But I tell
you, I'm very proud of what our essential workers have done. I'm very proud that
I can sit in the House of Assembly at 11:13 in the night and give them thanks.
I'll sit here every day and thank them for what they did. No matter if it's 2 in
the morning or it's 10 in the morning, it doesn't make any difference. I'll sit
here for them because that's what we're here for. We're here for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm sorry to the hon. minister who just got up and
thought this was a waste of time. I don't think it's a waste of time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I'm
the longest sitting Member on this side. A couple of Members here have been here
longer than I have. I've been here through filibusters and they've worked. I was
here in 2016 when we sat all night long to try to stop the closure of libraries
in this province –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
The
levy.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
– and the levy. We did stop the closure of libraries in this province. Do you
know what? I bet a lot more people are using libraries today, because of the
situation we're in, than ever before.
We're here for a reason. We're here to represent
people. This is not a filibuster; this is a debate. At 12 o'clock, under the new
rules that were brought in by your government, there are no more filibusters.
We'll go home tonight and we'll come here again 10 tomorrow morning. This is a
debate.
Normally in a budget, there are a couple of
non-confidence motions and every Member in this House will at least get one hour
to speak – one hour in the House. You speak on the non-confidence, you speak on
the motion and then you speak on the main budget. No non-confidence vote in this
because we've all agreed to do it.
This is an opportunity we have to talk about things in
our district, things that are important. Things like pension plans and how it's
important for people to be able to access money so they don't lose their homes,
so they don't lose their cars, so they don't lose what they have, what they've
built up. These are very difficult times for people in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I'm sure there's not one person that's in this House of Assembly
tonight that doesn't realize it, and haven't had a call from somebody saying: I
don't know what I'm going to do. What am I going to do?
I had a call yesterday from a young man, 32 years old,
electrician, on the Husky project down in Argentia. He said: Kevin, is it true
that they're not going back to work next year? He said: I'm going to lose my
house. There's no work out West. He said: I'm with the union. I'm calling all
day long. I'm going to lose my – is there anything coming? I said: I don't know.
I'm hoping that you can find something. He's willing to do anything. I mean,
willing to do anything. I need a job, he said. Anyone you know where I can go
get a job to? What do we tell these people?
Listen, that's not only one person; that's people in
every district in this province. That's what we're here in the House of Assembly
for, to try to be able to have some solutions for people. So when the minister
thinks that this is a waste of time tonight, it's not a waste of time, minister.
It's not a waste of time at all. You can tell your friend that we're here
tonight to talk for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the crowd over
on the other side are doing a good job of it. You tell them that, okay? Because
I'm sorry if you want to go home, because I don't care about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I
will tell you one thing, as a province – the first speech I gave tonight, I
started off by saying how lucky we are, and we're lucky. Because you know what?
I really believe we have people in this House of Assembly, and I know we have
people in Newfoundland and Labrador that care. We have volunteers out there that
will go do anything. Volunteer firefighters, volunteer Lions Club, volunteers
all over this province. We do more volunteer hours per capita than any other
province in Canada. There's a reason for it: because we care about our
neighbours; we care about people.
When I listened tonight to some of the speeches that
were done here tonight and thanking people for all that they've done, that's who
we are as people. Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador are the greatest province and the greatest bunch of people that are
around. We're here tonight to put their concerns forward. Now, if you listen to
them, that's up to yourselves. That's up to you. The Minister of Education wants
to listen to the Member for St. John's Centre when he talks concerns about
education. I talked concerns about education tonight too. Well, I hope you
listened to them.
The hon. Member just spoke. He said: I don't know why
we're here; we're not listening to anything else. We're all here because my
opinion and the opinion of whether a person wants a bit of paving or don't want
a bit of paving, we're all entitled to our opinion. That's what a democratic
society is all about. It's about 40 people that were elected by the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador to express their opinions, to give their ideas, to say
what's on their mind, to represent the people in their districts. That's what
we're all here for. Every person in this House of Assembly is here for the
people that elected them.
There are no bosses here. Do you know who my bosses
are? My bosses are the people in Cape St. Francis that elect me. I don't care
who you are; I don't care if you vote for me or didn't vote for me. If you make
a phone call to my office, I will answer the call because you're a constituent
of mine. I think we're here to represent all people in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Really, honestly when I listened to that speech a
couple of minutes ago – and I'm sorry, Minister, for keeping you up late, but I
tell you one thing right now, we can stay up a lot later. The people in
Newfoundland and Labrador, their concerns will be heard here in the House of
Assembly if our party and the people on this side have anything to say about it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, let's recap for a moment, will we. Tonight
we're debating on granting the government the ability to borrow an additional $1
billion on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people whom we
represent.
Mr. Chair, the reason which I am focusing on
public-private partnerships is that the province has already committed to $1.5
billion in planned 30-year contracts. So I can draw a pretty direct link between
we want to borrow a billion dollars and we're using a billion dollars for
infrastructure.
You may note that I have asked numerous questions in
the House of Assembly about the use of public-private partnerships, the terms of
contract, some of the escalation costs associated with that, the way in which
the maintenance will be done, just some finer points in the contract and, quite
honestly, I've not received an answer. In fact, as I refer to the report from
which I have been quoting, we find that we have, in fact, spent $5 million on
public dollars, 88 per cent of which was given to a sole-sourced consultant.
That consultant won that initial contract without a competitive process. Mr.
Chair, the reason we are here tonight is because we are looking to spend that
billion dollars and we have had very little accountability on the $1.5 billion
that we've already spent.
In that context of that expenditure, not only do we not
know where that money is being spent; we are not being told what the terms and
conditions of those contracts are. In fact, and I think this is a particularly
important point, the “consultant was awarded an initial contract without a
competitive process, the conclusions of which” – now remember, we have not seen
the $5.1-million report that this sole-sourced contractor provided, but it says
“… the conclusions of which led to it being awarded other contracts to support
the P3 projects that they recommended.” If that's not an incestuous
relationship, Mr. Chair, I don't know what is.
I quote from the report: “A consultant that both
assesses and promotes P3s is a perversion of good decision-making.” Mr. Chair,
what we are doing today is talking about good decision-making and the lack
thereof in our awarding of P3 contracts. When we start to talk about the access
to information requests and publicly available information, we find that the
“report dispels the claim that there is any financial or other discernable
advantages in regard to the design, build or maintenance of these infrastructure
projects using a P3 approach.”
We've been told by this sole-sourced contractor – and
we haven't seen the report – that this is a good idea, but we have no other
evidence that the spending of this $1.5 billion was a good idea. In fact, we
don't know if it's going to save us money or if it's going to get us more
services or if those services are going to be provided in a more efficient or
appropriate way. What we do know is that these P3 deals are locking the province
into 30-year contracts that include capital costs and costs for maintenance.
Mr. Chair, we all know that if you buy a house and you
pay it out over 30 years, that's a good investment because houses, they retain
and sometimes appreciate in value. But if you also throw in the cost of the
furnishings of that house and you pay that over 30 years, by the time you get
that couch paid off, that couch has been handed down to your child and that
child has handed it off to the next child when they went through university.
You've got four new couches already gone through the house before you get the
couch that you paid off, that you bought when you bought that house, under the
course of a 30-year contract. That is not a smart use of money.
So, Mr. Chair, the reason we are here today is because
we are asking, collectively, we want to borrow an additional billion dollars on
behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I don't have any rationale
for why this is a good idea. In fact, I'm not even allowed to see the report
that told me it was a good idea to do it in the first place, let alone seeing
the contract that we just signed on for, for 30 years.
We have a responsibility to the public purse. I'm being
told that this is a waste of taxpayers' money. No, Sir. It is a waste of
taxpayers' money when we are committing to long-term contracts and, I quote, I
want to go back to this: “Locking into 30-year contracts with a declining
population, and unknown needs in the future, plus an economic and fiscal crisis,
would be especially unwise for NL.”
Now, given that I have not gotten sensible answers to
any of the P3 questions that I've asked to the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure and given that there has been no forum to address any of the P3
contracts or even the feasibility or practicality of those, let alone the
efficiencies associated with it, then I think we are here for a darn fine
reason, Mr. Chair. I will happily go on all night about why we ought to be
debating these types of things. I will take every advantage of the time we have
to discuss something that seems to be very well desired to be well hidden.
Mr. Chair, to go back to the P3 models, one of the
rationales within the P3 modelling is to try and capture the additional
unforeseen costs or risks in these P3 models. Being a provincial government,
when we take on an infrastructure project, we take on all the risks associated
with that and those risks sometimes are quite large and sometimes are quite
small. But we do take on those risks and because we have a fiscal capacity and
because we have a stream of revenues and we are backed by the Government of
Canada and we are reasonably safe, it is relatively easy for a provincial
government to adjust to unforeseen risks.
Mr. Chair, I did happen to find some document that
addressed some of the risks that are captured when P3 models are presented and
we see some of the proposals associated with it.
Mr. Chair, I note one of the more ridiculous risks
associated with one of the P3 contracts I saw was the risk of a civil uprising
in Corner Brook. I've not heard of a civil uprising in Corner Brook and I really
don't think that there's much cause for us to be too concerned, or concerned
enough to build in a factor of risk of the potential for a civil uprising in the
City of Corner Brook so we can build a long-term care facility there.
MR.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
COFFIN:
Perhaps we need an adjustment for the Member for Corner Brook. Perhaps we may
just need a by-election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS.
COFFIN:
Mr.
Chair, I note in our study that the –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
COFFIN:
I
just said by-election. The sole advantage to using P3s is political.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS.
COFFIN:
I
note the report says: “The sole advantage to using P3s is political – a smaller
amount of the capital costs added to the debt in the current government's
balance sheet.” It is simply a way to hide debt. We do not know the stream of
payments that we have committed to over the next 30 years.
Mr. Chair, that is the reason we are here tonight.
Given the opportunity, I will happily talk at length about more reasons why we
need to stay here and discuss this further.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour; the Member for
Corner Brook.
MR.
BYRNE:
Mr.
Chair, I understand there may be a by-election that's imminent so I'll keep my
comments brief.
I want to thank the hon. Member for her kind
deliberations on the merits, or lack thereof, of P3s; however, I would also like
to add the comments from the people of Corner Brook about P3s and how it has
impacted their lives.
Mr. Chair, what I can report to this hon. House and to
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is that if one were to have a by-election
in the District of Corner Brook on the merits – or maybe not a by-election,
maybe a referendum – of P3s, I think what you would find is that there would be
near unanimous support for the government's proposal and implementation of the
P3s. That would not be dissimilar, Mr. Chair, to the unanimous support that the
government has received from all parties on our budget.
Now, Mr. Chair, in terms of the potential for uprising,
allow me to say there was a potential for uprising. There was a call for an
uprising. I believe certain members of the labour movement, who I have a deep
respect for and a profound admiration for and like to call a partner, but there
was a call for an insurrection, a civil action against P3s in Corner Brook, led
by certain members of the labour movement. I think it did attract three or four
people. So there was no civil disobedience related to P3s in Corner Brook,
despite calls for the same. What we did get was a very strong motion of support
for what did occur.
Now, Mr. Chair, the proof of the pudding is in the
eating. If you were to examine a model of long-term care construction and
design-build model that produced the older, but somewhat new, long-term care
facility located on University Avenue, you would find a good building. You'd
find a building that was built by a company that I believe was the Pomerleau
group out of Quebec. They built that building in 2008. I believe it was awarded
by the former PC government, but the architecture, the design of that particular
building was substantially different than what you found in the construction,
design, build, finance and maintain model of the 145-bed long-term care facility
that was just opened last year.
If you were to ask the people of Corner Brook their own
thoughts, their own perspectives, their own consideration of the traditional
design-build model where government designed the building and tendered it out
and simply produced a turnkey operation where the prime contractor just simply
built the building and walked away from it immediately upon construction and
offered a one-year warranty in its fabrication, what you'd find is the building
that was built in 2008 is very much different than the building that was built
and completed last year. Yes, I think you would find that it would be called
adequate but by no means superior.
I would contrast that with the long-term care building
build that was completed last year. The 145-bed unit with 120 beds in long-term
care, 15 beds in rehabilitation and 10 beds for palliative care. That is an
incredible facility. Every Corner Brooker, every son or daughter of a parent who
entered that building, every person who required alternative care arrangements,
everyone who has ever witnessed that structure has said this is a place we are
proud of.
It has individual dining facilities for each floor. It
has rooms for palliative care. It has rooms specially designed so that family
members could spend the last days with loved ones together as a family in an
overnight setting. It has capacity; it has laundry rooms that were built in to
the design. Mr. Chair, those rooms don't exist to the 2008 structure, the
traditional government build, of design build. They were put in place by a
competitive process that saw patient best interests, financial best interests,
economic best interests and health care best interests built into the project.
If you were to ask and have a referendum tomorrow,
which particular facility would meet with the greater satisfaction of the people
of the West Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, from the
people from my District of Corner Brook, I do not think you would find any
comparison between the two. You would have unanimous support for the design,
build, finance and maintain option that the government has chosen.
Mr. Chair, in addition to that, if I could highlight
some other features. It was suggested that there's no evidence of cost savings.
There's no evidence of other features that are worthwhile of merit for this
House to be made aware of or understand. That is not true. There was an economic
analysis, a financial analysis that did determine that there would be a $15
million savings to taxpayers as a result of the design, build, maintain option,
and that's proven out.
Now, $15 million, Mr. Chair, we've heard a lot of the
requirement for road construction in our province. I bet there are a lot of
Members in this Chamber that would like to have part of that $15 million that we
saved for roads in their districts. Mr. Chair, it is, in essence, available for
those purposes. Money we saved in one function becomes available for other
functions.
Mr. Chair, I could speak of other financial details, of
the fact that in the previous traditional model of simple design build and walk
away with the tail-light warranty attached, you have a different model here
where the builder has a competitive advantage or an incentive, I should say, for
over engineering the building to be able to reduce costs in heating and
maintenance over the long term.
For example, in the basic specs of the building, the
acute care hospital, there was no requirement of triple glazing of windows.
There was no requirement of using flooring that had a 30-year warranty attached
to it, but that's what the builder decided. In the construction of the bid,
that's what was chosen because having superior building materials was in the
best interest of not only the patient, the health care facility itself, but in
the contractor.
In essence, we have an over-engineered building that I
am pretty darn proud of and will stand the test of time, because there's an
incentive built in to really overbuild – and I use that expression with my
tongue firmly planted in my cheek, because it's not overbuilt. It's built in a
very prudent, efficient but highly economic model that is designed so it can
last well beyond the 30-year life cycle of the builder without a tailgate
warranty attached. If there are any issues of poor workmanship, it is the
company, not the government, that holds that liability. That's why there's an
incentive to do it right from the first time.
I think there are companies, maybe one of which was the
company that built the other long-term care, where they're still to this day
involved in litigation over issues surrounding that particular building. The
same thing in other facilities, like in Carbonear. Mr. Chair, those issues are
largely resolved by the fact that the builder has the responsibility of
maintaining the building over the long term so they get it right, not with the
tailgate warranty attached but with a 30-year warranty attached.
That is why I have become a strong proponent of
well-implemented P3s. I hope this province takes it as an example other
construction projects to come.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course I can't let it go without talking about the
hospital in Corner Brook and the long-term care. With all due respect to the
people who were talking about the three Ps, I just want to give a little history
here about the hospital.
I think the first announcement was made in 2007. I was
there. I wasn't at the announcement but I was there in Corner Brook when the
announcement was made that there was going to be a hospital built. They set it
all up in 2007. I think it was six or seven announcements made between 2007 and
up to 2015. I was at that uprising, actually, when they were up there, and I
tell you, it was Wayne Lucas from CUPE. They had a protest.
I went up to the protest and I stood up and I said to
Wayne Lucas – and I'll give a bit of history of it. The case that they were
using was a school in Nova Scotia that they built. The only problem they had,
they didn't say at the end of the 30 years that the government owns the school.
At the end of 20 years, the government said we want to buy the school. They said
oh, you want to buy our school now. That's where the price went up.
That was the case in some of those studies. It wasn't
that it was a plan from day one at 30 years to bring it up to this level and we
take it. That was not the case. The case in the study was that the school was
going to be at 30 years still owned by the company. The government in 20 years
said we'll buy the school. They said, okay, here's the cost, which drove the
cost up.
When you want to talk about the three Ps and use that
example, you have to put the facts on the table. In this case, the cost is built
in.
The other factor here, and I'll say this, when we
became government in 2015-2016, in 2015, while it was announced in Corner Brook,
with all due respect – and the minister is not here now, the guy who made the
announcement – they were building a long-term care on the site for the hospital,
they had a private company from BC to come in and set up the long-term care.
They gave them the land and set up a profit company coming in for long-term
care. We put a stop on that in 2016.
That's the history of it. We need to give the correct
history of it. That was stopped because there was a company coming from BC – the
BC government, at the time, was getting them to set up the long-term care.
The other big issue – and I know the Member for Corner
Brook just went through the costs – was public sector employees. There was a
rally out here on the steps when people were talking about public sector
employees, that it's going to be farmed out, we're going to give it off for
profit groups.
I don't know if there are one or two that can remember
this – I went out on those steps and faced 400 people. I stood up and I said:
You have my personal guarantee, the government's guarantee that there are going
to be public sector employees in that to offer the best care possible. I went
out there and I stood on those steps in front of 400 people, some booed, some
said we'll go ahead with it. That's the history.
The other part that we're missing here is about the
cost. I'll just give you a good example that's been debated in this House:
Muskrat Falls. What's the cost overrun? What's the longevity of Muskrat Falls
that was supposed to be built? When was it supposed to be opened? How it was to
be opened. We still haven't got the power.
When you go with 3Ps, there's no cost overrun for
government and it has to be built on time or there's a penalty.
The other part about the 3Ps and I'm not sure which
exactly – a study that's there. The other part with 3Ps that when you take it
over in 30 years, there's a contract of what standard it has to be built up to.
That's the other part of it. That's the other part, is what standard it has to
be built up to. So when you take it over, you're not taking over something
that's downtrodden or something, there's a standard you have to take it up to.
I agree that there are funds there, but when you
actually cost it over so many years, the maintenance, where you don't have the
employees and you don't have the people outside. Because like we said, anything
inside will be public sector employees and the outside is the company.
That's the facts and that's where a lot of the savings
come in and the government then have to go borrow on top of their debt. There's
no doubt, you're right on that, I'll say to the Leader of the Opposition. It
don't show on the books. But it's like anything that you do, if you spend over
30 years and you're going to spend a dollar a year, that's $30, but if you're
going to spend 78 cents over 30 years, that's less money. If you do the extra
calculations on the 3Ps, that's the simplified version, but that's how it works
because no cost overrun and then you get the building at the end of it, you own
the building at a certain …
The other part – and I know the Member for Corner Brook
is big on this – the biggest part for me about all of this, I remembers going to
former Premier Dwight Ball at the time, and we were in Opposition, and there was
a person in the Premier's office by the name of Joy Buckle. One of the things I
said to him, which, again, the previous administration before 2015 never had,
was a radiation unit so people from the West Coast didn't have to come in here
and have that dreaded disease without family present. Joy Buckle started on
that. We talked to Bob Cook. He's the doctor in Corner Brook. We talked to him
and said: How do we start this?
He gave a name: Dr. David Saltman. Dr. David Saltman
was the radiologist who used to go to Corner Brook and offer his services in
Corner Brook. He pushed for years to get a unit in Corner Brook, Dr. David
Saltman. Eventually, he moved on because they wouldn't agree with him. I
remember contacting him. I tracked him down in Victoria, British Columbia, Dr.
David Saltman. I said: Here's what I want to get done and here's who's going to
do most of the work – Joy Buckle. This is a person whose name is never
mentioned, but she did yeoman service for that radiation unit, I guarantee you.
He started giving us names, people from Australia, all
over Canada, all over North America that we were in contact with. I remember the
arguments in this House we had about isotopes, that you couldn't fly them in
because you can't have them. I proved all that wrong. I remember us going to
Dwight Ball at the time and saying: We have to do a radiation. He said: B'y,
that's big. I said: If we don't, I'm not running in 2015. I'm not putting my
neck on the line and not have radiation. Joy Buckle went and proved it, got it
done; a lot of us, we worked on it and we got radiation.
When you talk about the cost to government and you talk
about the unknown cost, how much would it cost; you have people coming in; the
travel subsidies. That's not even counted in under this: the pain and suffering
for people to come in with all this.
I remember the incident in Corner Brook when I
confronted the union and I walked up. Do you know what the workers said to me?
Except for one, the leader of the union. Do you know what everybody else said?
We think it's a good idea. That's why there's no uprising in Corner Brook.
After you sit down and you do the cost analysis and you
say, okay, this makes sense. The cost analysis does make sense when you look at
the costing and how it's paid out and you're not worried about the cost overrun;
you're not worried about the maintenance; you're not worried about not being on
time. You're still into $12 million, $15 million over 30 years and you don't
have to come up with the capital cost, which the government would have been
another billion dollars in the hole. It makes good sense.
If you look at the human cost of the hospital in Corner
Brook and the radiation unit in Corner Brook, it's immeasurable. Anybody here
who wants to talk about the hospital and the radiation unit that's put there –
and I know the Member for Corner Brook is passionate about it and so am I – that
was beaten to death for years and it was all proven false.
Any time anybody wants to bring it up and say, okay, we
shouldn't have built a hospital in Corner Brook or shouldn't have built a
radiation unit, ask the people who have to come into St. John's should we have a
radiation unit. Ask them. Ask them if we should have the long-term care facility
instead of bringing down a private company from BC for profit, setting it right
up on the site, right there: profit, settle up. That's what was put in place.
I remember in 2011, when I got elected in 2011, we were
here and we were discussing – Tom Hedderson was the minister of Health at the
time. I have to give him credit, he was so honest. I only have 30 seconds left,
so I'll speak fast.
I remember, it was during Estimates. I asked Tom
Hedderson: Can we see the plans for the hospital? Do you know what he said? We
haven't even got them. I said, what are you talking about? Tom Hedderson – I
give him credit, he was honest – he said, we haven't even got the draft done. He
said, we haven't even got the draft design done yet. The big announcement was in
2011. The hon. Member for Corner Brook can remember that, when it was the big
announcement (inaudible) we're starting the hospital and they never even had the
design done.
MR.
HAGGIE:
(Inaudible) 2015.
MR.
JOYCE:
And
in 2015 it wasn't done.
So I just want to pass on my views on the hospital and
the radiation, and I support it 100 per cent. The same with the people on the
West Coast, and Labrador also.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's great to have another opportunity to speak to this
bill. I guess this will probably be the last one now for tonight. Based on the
rules, we're out of here at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Chair, I want to say right off the bat, I like the
minister of Natural Resources. I always have. I do. I like him, I respect him.
He's a good parliamentarian. He's pretty smart politically, but I have to say,
when he got up and spoke the last time it felt to me almost like Babe Ruth in
Yankee Stadium. Babe Ruth, in this case, is going to be the Member for Cape St.
Francis, and that ball –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
LANE:
That baseball is lobbing in and it's right over the centre of the plate and it's
nice and slow. The Member is there and he's pointing out to the outfield and he
hits it right over the fence. It's almost like he set him up perfectly. He set
him up perfectly, I have to say.
On the point, though, that the minister raised, I think
it's important to put it in context for this person who he's talking to on the
phone or whoever and is asking about why we're here tonight and so on.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
They're gone to bed.
MR.
LANE:
Gone to bed now, okay. Maybe you could tell this person in the morning.
No, the reason why we're here, let's put it in context,
is the government put us here tonight. Because normal business, we'd be out of
here at 5:30 today. It was the government who decided we're going to keep the
House open tonight. The government could've at any time – at 7 o'clock they
could've adjourned debate, at 8 o'clock they could've adjourned debate, at 9
o'clock they could've adjourned debate, 10 o'clock they could've adjourned
debate, 11 o'clock they could've adjourned debate, but they're not adjourning
debate. So to suggest it's the people on this side that's keeping us here until
midnight, that's really not true.
The government could've closed down debate at any time
and tomorrow we could've went about regular business. Maybe we'd go on this
bill, maybe they'd choose a different bill; we'd have Private Members' Day
tomorrow and so on. It's really in the government's hands.
When we're talking about the fact that we're in a new
age filibuster – I'm going to call it a new age filibuster because the normal
filibuster is gone. When we changed the legislation we wouldn't be here all
night, but this new age filibuster that we're in is really kind of created now
by the government. So we'll just continue on tomorrow morning at 10 and we'll
keep talking until we're tired of talking about it.
So we're clear, it's not this side that created this
situation, it's that side that created it. Obviously, they had their mind made
up, well, we want to get this bill through tonight. We just want to get it
through, so we're going to have this little game of attrition here now. We're
going to stay here and they're going to get tired. Then, come 7 o'clock they'll
say enough of this b'ys, it's time to go home; or 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock. I
guess they're a little surprised by the fact that we said no, we got lots to
say. We got lots to say, so we're not going home.
I have a feeling this is going to continue right on
through tomorrow and we're going to be here tomorrow night, we're probably still
going to be doing it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that were to happen, but
let's be clear on how we got in this particular situation. The government had
every opportunity to stop it but for some reason they want to get this bill
through ASAP, and I don't know what the hurry is. I don't know what the hurry
is. At the end of the day, we're all here anyway. People are in here from town
and whatever, so the travel costs are here. We're here till midnight. There's
nothing being held up. There are no additional costs really.
To suggest that government's business is being somehow
upended here and things aren't getting done, I mean most people went home at 5
o'clock, the people that are going to be in the departments. So I don't think
there's going to be a whole lot of meetings that would have taken place at 8
o'clock or 9 o'clock tonight to be pushing any significant agendas.
The argument, I have to say, is a bit weak but I give
them full marks. I do give them full marks for at least trying to put that
across on behalf of his colleagues, and that's all part of the game too. We know
that.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
He tried to hoodwink you.
MR.
LANE:
He
tried to hoodwink me. He couldn't hoodwink me.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
LANE:
No,
no. In fairness, I can't say they did because they're not the same “they” that
were there before. I think the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island and
the Member for Cape St. Francis were hoodwinked too. I think they were
hoodwinked too. I think it took them a little longer to realize and come to
grips with the fact that they were hoodwinked, but they were. Anyway, I
appreciate that.
Anyway, with that said, we have like four minutes and
30 seconds left here now. So I'm just going to take this opportunity to put a
little plug in once again. I know I'm like a broken record on this but I really
think now that we're on the topic of being hoodwinked by the $6-million man and
all of his accomplices that are still there – and I think that's a point that
still needs to be made. I understand we talk about contracts. I was told the
contracts that were in place, we can't deal with these individuals who are still
here. Everyone is going off, sailing off into the sunset with their big
retirement and everything else and their big payouts.
I asked about that. I asked about the contracts when we
were in Estimates. I think it was Finance. It might not be Finance but I think
it might have been Finance, human resources. I asked about that and said can we
write contracts so that this doesn't happen in the future. I was basically told
no. To suggest that there was some contract that was made up for these people
that was over and above and special or something that protected them, that's not
the case. I was told at the Estimates that the same contract that these people
had would be the same contract that new people would have.
Basically what we're saying is that if you go to work
for a government agency, board or commission, there seems to be a different
standard than would apply in private industry from what I can see. It seems like
in this case you can display absolute incompetence, negligence, you name it. You
can hide risk reports, you can fudge numbers, you can do everything, and at the
end of the day you can keep your job. There's no way of getting rid of you and
if you do, it's going to cost us a fortune.
I will never accept that. I'm sorry. I will never
accept that. I think we should have challenged it. Even if we ran the risk of
losing, so what? If they have to fight it in court for a couple of years or
something to send a strong message, so be it. I feel like we've totally let some
of these individuals off the hook.
By the way, most people – because some of them get the
impression that somehow I'm against Nalcor and everything. That's not true. You
can laugh, too. It's not true. There are a lot of good people, honest,
hard-working people that work at Nalcor and its subsidiaries, Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro and so on. I think of the people who go out in all kinds of
weather and everything else and the regular workers and stuff. They're not the
ones that did this. It was the suits, the controlling minds.
It was the people at the highest level of the
organization, as was borne out in the Muskrat Falls inquiry, as was borne out in
Commissioner LeBlanc's report. It was these individuals that did this, that
provided false information to myself, to at least a couple of other Members in
this House of Assembly, absolutely did, and they're getting off with it
scot-free.
I understand and I appreciate that the government does
have a police investigation at least to look into it. I don't know what's going
to come of it and they're going to look to see if there are any civil actions
and so on. Those were things that I recommended long ago and I'm glad they did
it. I hope to God, I hope that they can hold some people accountable. Because
right now, as far as I'm concerned, what's gone on as been an absolute farce, an
absolute disgrace and a slap in the face to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian
that watched –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
LANE:
Yes, and I wish I hadn't voted for it. Yes, you're darn right. I wish I hadn't
voted for it. But I did so. I did what I had to do in good faith. I thought I
was doing the right thing, but unfortunately –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Keep going.
MR.
LANE:
Everyone is saying keep going.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
LANE:
Oh,
we got a (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Given the hour of the day, or morning, in accordance
with Standing Order 11(2), I will now rise the Committee, report progress and
ask leave to sit again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report that they have made progress and ask
leave to sit again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means has reported that the Committee has
considered the matters to them referred, have made progress and have directed
him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
When shall the report be received?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Committee
ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Given the hour of the day and pursuant to our
Standing Orders, the House is now
adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
On motion, the House as its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.