June 15

June 15, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

I would like to take a moment to comment on the tone of debate in the Chamber. On April 1, 2020, the House adopted a Harassment-Free Workplace Policy governing our interactions outside this Chamber.

In a report accompanying the policy, the Committee states the following: “The House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to a safe and respectful work environment for Members and employees that is free from harassment, bullying and violence. It is everyone's responsibility to foster a healthy work environment; to promote a culture of civility; to demonstrate respect; and to recognize every person's right to be protected and supported.”

While the policy does not apply to interactions within this Chamber, given parliamentary privileges and the related freedoms of speech that Members enjoy, I see no reason why the principles accepted by the House and adopted in policy should not apply to debate here as well. I draw Members' attention to the fact that language and tone used in debate matter. That is, I see no reason why principles of respect and civility should not apply to debate in this Chamber.

I ask all hon. Members to examine the language they use in the House and to ensure that it is tempered, appropriate and respectful.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit in this hon. House today to recognize 17-year-old Sara Thorne of Chance Cove, a resident of my beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue who loves the sport of auto racing. Sara has been a regular on the track in Avondale since 2019 and is truly a rising star in her sport in this province.

This was evident this past weekend when Sara made history on the track as she captured the checkered flag to become the first female to win the sportsman main event during the NASCAR Advance Auto Parts Weekly Series.

Sara is a trailblazer for young women and girls looking to get into the sport of auto racing and the sport in general.

She's a great example of those individuals who want to follow their dreams and become champions. Through her determination and hard work, Sara is a force behind the wheel and feared by all who compete against her on the racetrack in this province.

I invite all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Sara and her team on this prestigious victory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, 3L Training & Employment board, an organization located in St. Lawrence, has a mandate to provide training and work experience to individuals who may experience challenges in the workplace. Clients are paired with a worker who assists them in the skilled development of tasks required for the workforce. They are matched with local contractors, grocery store owners and the museum where they currently run a business.

The Town of St. Lawrence and the board made up of volunteers from St. Lawrence, Little St. Lawrence and Lawn have made significant investments in providing the necessary equipment and space for them to operate a jewelry making business. The clients who participate in this program use local fluorspar for their craft and the end result is truly amazing. People from all over come to purchase this locally crafted product. While visiting, they have the opportunity to observe the clients at work or craft their own piece.

The people of the three communities are so proud of this organization and their contribution to our community. It is a great example of what happens in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when people take care of their own and show the true character and kindness of rural living.

If you are visiting this very beautiful, historic area of the province located in the great District of Burin - Grand Bank drop by and meet the folks at 3L.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. REID: Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize Rachael Moores, a 16-year-old student in Pasadena who recently was honoured nationally for helping other students improve their financial knowledge.

She recently entered a competition sponsored by the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education and the CIBC. In this competition, high school students from across Canada were challenged to use their creativity, skills and passion to create new tools and resources to help young Canadians improve their financial knowledge and capabilities.

Rachael excelled by creating a website called School Makes Cents to teach fellow students everything they needed to know about the cost of post-secondary education.

Rachael gives tips on how to budget, stores that provide discounts, different types of savings and outlined different ways students can pay for post-secondary education such as through scholarships, grants and working or through co-operative education.

Racheal passed the first round of judging and was one of the 10 finalist who made it to the second round of this national competition. In the next round, she won the second place prize of $5,000.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Rachael Moores of Pasadena on her accomplishment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. STOYLES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House in remembrance of constituents and friends who have left their mark on all of us all.

Mr. Jim Greenland, who served as chair of the Frosty Festival and community volunteer; Mr. Gerry Taylor, a huge contributor to Mount Pearl minor hockey and a member of the NL Hockey Hall of Fame; Mr. Neil Windsor who served the District of Mount Pearl as MHA for over 20 years; Mr. Jim Thistle, he is remembered for his devotion and love of his family and his community service; Ms. Carole Burke, a lifetime resident of Mount Pearl and an employee with the City of Mount Pearl; Margaret Pike, whose family was her sole existence; Cyril Colford, a neighbour, friend and lifetime volunteer; also, Dr. Val Conway; and Mr. George Murphy who will be in our thoughts forever.

Mr. Speaker, all these people surely have made their mark: we will remember them all.

I ask all Members of this House to remember them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on June 11 and 12, I had the opportunity to attend the 100th anniversary of the St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Bishop's Falls. Friday evening was the unveiling of its centennial banner and on Saturday, a prayer walk through the town, ending with a barbecue.

We all know the restrictions that have been placed on public buildings, including churches, during COVID; however, with the dedication of its congregation and leadership of Rev. Jeff Blackwood, St. Andrew's Church has weathered the storm.

St. Andrew's Church has provided hundreds of community services this past century, including baptisms, weddings, funerals, youth programs, but most of all, a place to worship. Built in 1921 with its magnificent architecture, the bell still rings for Sunday service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the congregation of St. Andrew's Anglican Church on their 100th anniversary and wish them many more years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Mr. Speaker, while many of us do not even think twice about how we are going to get to a doctor's appointment, go to the grocery store or travel to work every day, there are many people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who struggle to get around because of age, mobility, geography or income.

The value of ensuring seniors, persons with disabilities and individuals with low income to access services and participate in their communities cannot be overstated.

To help reduce transportation barriers, the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development offers the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Transportation Program, with an investment of $300,000 in Budget 2021. This program can significantly improve an individual's independence and their health, as well as help them become a more active member in their community.

It is available to municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and Indigenous governments and communities to develop, implement and evaluate a community-based transportation project that is as inclusive and as accessible as possible. Many valuable projects have been implemented by community partners with support from this program. I am pleased that seven projects located throughout the province were supported last year, one of which was Connections for Seniors Handy Ride Program.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I opened the call for applications for the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Transportation Program, with the deadline to apply being September 30. Successful applicants can receive up to $100,000 for alternate transportation services for individuals who experience barriers to accessible, affordable and inclusive transportation.

I encourage any community or group interested in the program to reach out to my department by calling 1-888-494-2266 or visiting our website.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I give credit to the minister for implementing a Community Transportation Program for seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals, and especially the fact that he recognized the many struggles faced by many people in our province. We recognize the fact many of these individuals need this kind of support and we're pleased to see he recognized the fact an allowance for transportation is a small step towards poverty reduction.

We believe in a strategy for the inclusion of seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals in collaboration with non-profit and community organizations. It's important to remove barriers and help achieve the full inclusion of all citizens of this province.

I would hope the program will benefit the seniors, low-income individuals and persons with disabilities in every community of this province. Whether you reside on the Coast of Labrador, the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue or the City of St. John's, there should be no barriers in availing of the program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Third Party applauds the launch of this new program, as we believe that people can't be independent or truly free if they don't have access to equitable and accessible forms of transportation. Certainly, for many people in my district, this will be helpful.

However, we also recognize that more work must be done. Many people in this province continue to struggle to find adequate means of transportation due to age, mobility and low income. For instance, the loss of DRL means we now lack any intercity transit that is affordable and reliable. That's why we're calling on this government today to go further, map out an achievable plan to make accessible and affordable transportation a standard throughout the province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

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

I'm pleased today to recognize Public Service Week – dedicated to recognizing the outstanding public service employees who work hard every day for all of us. We celebrate their tremendous contributions and commitment to our province.

Each day, public service employees are on the front lines, working hard to ensure our communities are safe, our families healthy, our children educated. They work to build our communities and our economy. The important programs and services they offer positively affect families, individuals and businesses throughout our province every day.

The theme of this week, Proudly Serving Newfoundland and Labrador, speaks to the pride and commitment we see each day from the province's valued public service employees as they work to improve Newfoundland and Labrador and provide needed services and information, making it a better place to live and to work.

In response to the pandemic, they have risen to every challenge, rallying to find new and innovative ways to serve and to care. The pandemic has demanded perseverance and resourcefulness – the Newfoundland and Labrador public service has met that challenge and has once again demonstrated its excellence.

Mr. Speaker, their efforts and dedication are appreciated and their important contributions noticed every single day. I ask all members to join me in recognizing Public Service Week and the valuable contributions of those that serve.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in recognizing this week as Public Service Week.

I also wish to extend our appreciation to the hard-working members of the public service who give their efforts and talents to make this province a better place for all residents. From social workers, to policy analysts, to snowplow operators, to ferry captains, the public service has many professions within it. Each profession and each department works together to serve our province.

This past 18 months has been a challenge for the public service as many workers were forced to work from home, to find new ways of accomplishing their tasks and stretched to make sure all essential services were delivered. The public service demonstrated their true abilities and rose above this challenge. For this, I thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to give a special thank you to all those who work in the public service in my district. Many thanks for the work you do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance cop of her statement. The Third Party caucus would like to extend our appreciation to the public service workers of this province for the massive part they play in keeping our society running.

Their dedication to their work has especially been exemplary since the start of the pandemic. We cannot thank them or the essential workers of this province enough for the service they have provided. I urge the government to keep in mind the public service's value in the coming years as they roll out their different plans for the public sector.

A minimum wage and adequate labour laws need to be in place to protect all workers of this province. We owe the residents of this province better than the treatment we have given the cleaners in this building, who saw their wages cut and benefits stripped away as a result of privatization in the Wells administration. So, please, keep them in mind.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we sit here in the House the future of the Terra Nova Project gets dimmer as the clock ticks down to the deadline.

I ask the Premier: What actions have you taken in the last 24 hours to encourage a deal among the partners?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Of course, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology has been working diligently, long throughout the evening. We actually had a call with Noia last night to see how they could be of assistance. We're, again, pressuring the operators, the companies, the multi-billion dollar profitable oil companies to come to an agreement amongst themselves, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, we feel like we have a healthy, good offer on the table and we're looking forward to seeing what Suncor, as the operating partner, has to say and hopefully they can come to a resolution, Mr. Speaker. But this is a private sector issue and it needs a private sector solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last 24 hours has the Premier personally spoken to the Terra Nova partners to express the importance of getting a deal, and has be convened a meeting?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question.

We've certainly been in close contact with the partners, the many different partners, and the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology has been spearheading that. I have the utmost faith in his ability to execute, as all of the team here on this side of the floor, Mr. Speaker. I am very encouraged with how he has led this file, I couldn't be more proud to stand with him on this file and I have every confidence in his ability to continue to advance this file, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we get close to the deadline there are families out there who are worried about whether or not this file gets done.

Is the deadline for the deal still today? Has the Premier asked for an extension if a deal cannot be reached?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

As we've said before, this is not our deadline; this is a deadline amongst partners. We are not a partner in this project. This is a deadline that they have implemented. We hope they extend the deadline. We hope that they are able – as I'm sure the Members opposite do – to come to a resolution that allows for the partners to execute on the significant value that is our there in that resource, Mr. Speaker, so that we can have the returns to the people of this province.

This is not our deadline, Mr. Speaker. This is the deadline of multi-billion dollar profitable oil companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, when defending the Trudeau government for refusing to take an equity stake, the Premier said: They have no obligation to do so.

Why doesn't the Premier believe the federal government has an obligation to help get industries and jobs growing in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

What was meant by that response was they have no obligation to help multinational, multi-billion dollar profitable oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, they do have an obligation and they've honoured the obligation in incredible ways for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They've given the assurance that they will be there in the future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, including on rate mitigation, Mr. Speaker, and other important files as we face incredible economic challenges moving forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, we didn't hear that from federal Minister O'Regan yesterday when he spoke to the gathering about saving the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Yesterday, the Premier said he was considering selling off the province's equity in oil and gas sector as recommended by the Moya Greene report. But the minister seems to disagree saying: Equity in and of itself can be a good thing.

I ask the Premier, can you please clarify: Is your government for or against equity stakes in the offshore?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite. It's a good question, but I'll remind him not to put words in my mouth and confuse what was said between the Premier and myself.

The fact is that you can save both things. The fact is (a): we can consider equity. We have equity projects right now. That's certainly something we can consider. At the same time, you can obviously consider looking at the evaluation of the assets that we have: Does it make sense for us, as a government, to divest of them? I think it would not be prudent to consider both options.

Right now, there are absolutely no decisions that have been made. We've been obviously considering equity as it relates to the Terra Nova. We've made a decision on that. We do know that there have been conversations in the Greene report. These are all things that we will keep in mind as we move forward with the history of this industry and others.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Just so I'm clear: The minister does agree that equity shares are still on the table for future offshore development.

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

A. PARSONS: I guess what I could say to be clear to the Member opposite is that when it comes to making deals happen, we will always consider anything that will make a project happen, to bring work to this province. But as we've said before we will not take a bad deal, we will not participate in giveaways and we will not do everything at all cost if it's to the detriment to the future of the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We repeat our request from yesterday: Can the people of the province see the two sets of analyses from the Energy Department and OilCo of whether or not to take an equity stake?

Mr. Speaker, let the people see the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say two things in response to that question. The first one would be: all in due time. Right now, this negotiation is still ongoing. We have conveyed our position that there will be no equity. The partners are still looking at it. We've encouraged them. We've talked to them. We're trying to convince them that there is a solution for them to participate in. Part of that is the $500 million that we have put forward.

Again, I do know that the people are interested in this, but I will point out that there's a significant portion of this province that's actually looking at us and questioning why we would even consider equity in this province. They are questioning why we would even consider putting $500 million in. There are people on both sides of it.

Again, where we come in is: What is in the best interest of this province?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will share that time is running out for families and workers who work on the Terra Nova and looking to have some livelihood in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Yesterday, the minister said the government is ready to step up with help for workers in Terra Nova if Terra Nova closes.

When you weigh the costs of the equity investment against what we stand to lose in terms of employment, supply purchases, multiplier spinoffs, royalties, revenues, bailout cash and the chill effect of our industry, where does the balance really lie? Do you have a thorough analysis to table for taxpayers to see?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I don't need a reminder about time is running out here. I've been living with this since the first day I got in the job. I realize what we are facing here and I realize what the families of this province are facing. I certainly don't need a reminder on that.

As it relates to the jobs, I can tell you that is one of the biggest driving factors in even considering any of this was what does it relate to in the indirect spinoffs that come from this, not just the jobs, but what comes out of this. All that has been considered; all that plays a role in the negotiation.

We have made our position clear to the companies. We feel that this could be a beneficial deal for them with the money we have on the table. We feel that the jobs should stay here, but we also believe that these multinational profitable companies – one of which made over a quarter of a billion dollars just in the first quarter – we feel that there's more that they can do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We hope that the benefactors are the workers of the Terra Nova Project and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Over the weekend, The Globe and Mail published a report confirming two federal Liberals staffers were granted exemptions to come to Newfoundland and Labrador during the provincial election campaign. They are confirmed to have campaigned for the provincial Liberals.

I ask the Premier: When did you become aware of these two staffers arriving in the province to campaign for you?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

The first I was made aware of it was actually in The Globe and Mail article.

What individual staff members do – that don't work for me or this government – is none of my business, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, they were here, as I understand it, working for Minister O'Regan and, on a weekend, volunteered on an election campaign. The headline might as well read: Staffers go for a run on the weekend, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't have any knowledge of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: So in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a campaign, your federal counterpart sends two of their staff down here who go out and knock on doors for you and you're not aware of it?

We also heard they were making phone calls and knocking on doors.

I ask the Premier: Do you believe knocking on doors during an election campaign is an essential service?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER A. FUREY: The election was run under the Public Health guidelines, Mr. Speaker. I assume all parties within the House followed those guidelines. Making phone calls is certainly a COVID-friendly event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These election workers were allowed in Newfoundland and Labrador to get the Liberals elected, simple as that.

I ask the Premier: What do you say to families who had to miss funerals of loved ones? Is your election campaign more important than these loved ones' needs?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: I don't know how to answer that question. I didn't look at their application to come in the province, nor should I. Frankly, that would be wrong. If that was the case, then that deserves the question, but I have no insight into who gets exempt to come in nor should I, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal Liberals won't do their part to help get Terra Nova back operating, but they're quick to help the Premier and their Liberal friends get elected.

I ask the Premier: Do you believe that your election campaign was more important than the countless weddings that were either postponed or held without loved ones able to be present?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Once again, I would hope that everybody in this House followed the COVID guidelines for the election, which were published in the fall of 2020, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can't comment because I don't have any insight or knowledge or (inaudible) on who gets exempt or who doesn't, nor should I; that is a Public Health decision and should remain a Public Health decision above politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why should the families of rotational workers spend weeks and sometimes months apart while workers on your election campaign are allowed entry into the province for non-essential purposes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

I mean the answer is the same: I don't have any insight into who gets into the province; it's a Public Health decision, Mr. Speaker. I'm assuming that the Member opposite has full knowledge that he had no help from his federal cousins during the last election campaign. I would hope that is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: I would guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if my federal cousins wanted to come to Newfoundland and Labrador in the middle of a pandemic with the outbreak that's in their provinces, I would not be endorsing them to come here. I guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I ask the Premier: Which Members of your caucus did these staffers campaign for?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

I can't answer that either, Mr. Speaker, because I wasn't campaigning with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told that the federal minister posted photos online of two campaign workers on behalf of the Minister of Justice campaigning.

I ask the Minister of Justice: When did you learn that these non-essential election workers from the Mainland were knocking on doors on your behalf?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the question and thank you for looking at my campaign photos online.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: We had a great campaign. We had awesome volunteers, every single one of them. During the whole campaign, whether it was knocking on doors, making phone calls or doing work from their own houses, I can assure you that they all worked as hard as they could and followed all health protocols that were required by the chief Health officer in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: As I see the Members discard and laugh at the fact – about what we face during a pandemic and their disregard for the health of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's concerning here.

So, Mr. Premier, let me spell it out for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: What's so concerning about this story is the disregard for the travel ban put in place on March 18, 2020. I cannot understand how knocking doors on an election campaign could've been deemed to be essential work, when I'm sure the Liberals were well staffed with provincial volunteers during the election campaign.

I ask the Premier: What exemption did the election workers apply for that allowed them to enter our province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

I have the utmost faith in Dr. Fitzgerald and her team to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: To suggest that there was political interference is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Fitzgerald and her team are independent, as per the legislation, and they make the decisions. They look at the applications and they make the decisions. I've nothing further to say on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier rolled the dice and gambled with the public's health, calling an election in the middle of the winter in the middle of a pandemic when COVID-19 cases were rising, for two months prior, across the country. He gambled and lost. Now we see the Liberal Party disregarding Public Health orders that have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: – protected this province from the worst of COVID-19.

I ask the Premier: Why did you put your party before the public health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: As I've suggested many times, Mr. Speaker, and answered this question over and over again, there had to be a COVID-19 election given the legislation that was put in place by the Progressive Conservatives.

I actually think, Mr. Speaker, that's good legislation, that when there is a change there should be an election. So there had to be a COVID-19 election. The numbers were low; they were the lowest in the country. We looked at the modelling –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER A. FUREY: If you save the stochastic event that occurred, then there was no way to predict what actually happened, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Rahman was on to say that there was no way to predict that massive outbreak; Dr. Fitzgerald has said the same.

All numbers looked like that it would've been fine. The baseline was lower than anywhere else in the country. Again, Mr. Speaker, there had to be a COVID-19 election and, subsequently, there was one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is well aware, from a lot of dialogue in this House, of public – a PMR that was offered in this House and open dialogue around not having the necessity to do that no matter what it took. He called a premature election at a time that it would have been advantageous to him and him alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Last week, we learned from the Minister of Education that he had no idea about the president's contract at MUN.

Today, I would like to ask the Premier: Is he aware that the clerk of Executive Council, who he personally recruited and appointed, is collecting a six-figure pension and $186,000 salary from the same government job he retired from?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

The current clerk is a tremendous, lifelong civil servant, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: I will say this: He's getting paid less than when he was clerk for the Member opposite. I think we're getting a good value for our dollar, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody is questioning the clerk's ability, but the Premier is accurate here; he is getting paid less. From $202,000 a year to $186,000 a year, while –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the Premier is correct; the clerk is very competent. The issue has become he is getting less now at $186,000, versus his $202,000 when he retired last year or a couple of years, from which he still gets a six-figure income.

The question here: Is he eligible for a second pension doing the same job that he retired from?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

As the Member opposite knows, there's currently no legislation surrounding double-dipping. But I'm happy to have a fulsome debate on double-dipping in the future, Mr. Speaker, as it is an important question for this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Education believes that tax preparation and personal training are not acceptable benefits for the president of the university to foot the bill, will the Premier table the contract of the clerk of the Executive Council for this House?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I look forward to seeing that report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent article in JWN Energy, it says that if the Terra Nova FPSO is decommissioned, taxpayers of this province will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties to the partners.

How much money will the province have to pay and when?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to get back to questions that are actually important and serious to the people of this province, so I appreciate the question from the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: The reality is that there is a royalty credit or carry back, which has to go back to the partners if this project doesn't proceed. That would be in the range, roughly, of about $150 million. The amount is due regardless. It has to go back anyway.

What I would say is that I don't have a timeline on that. Right now, our attention and focus have absolutely been on trying to get the deal to go ahead. He is correct that there is a royalty credit or carry back.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Absolutely shocked to hear that the minister doesn't think that people being able to attend loved ones' funerals – and I missed my father's funeral, Minister – isn't important or is laughable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: I did, absolutely.

The reason the minister cannot give an answer is because he does not have an up-to-date commission or cost and analysis from the partners.

I ask the Premier: Why haven't you factored the cost into this decision?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Member opposite likes to play politics, and I send my condolences.

The reality is you cannot use the questions that he is asking here about two people coming down to this province and, basically, saying that Dr. Janice Fitzgerald –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

A. PARSONS: Keep going. Keep going. You want me to answer the question?

We're talking about election staffers coming down; we're talking about elections during pandemic time, and that's what we're coming back on. Why don't we put the questions back on where you've been going all week, which is Terra Nova, which is important?

If you have more questions to ask on Terra Nova, I'll certainly take them. Please ask them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Clearly, the last question was on the Terra Nova and the minister failed to answer it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I ask the Premier: Why haven't you factored the decommissioning cost, the indirect cost, into your decision for not backing Terra Nova?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we have looked at decommissioning costs, and there's a significant cost that's associated with decommissioning. The cost can change depending on when it happens and how it happens.

The big thing that we've put across here is that we do not want to take on that liability when we're coming in at the end of the field. All the other companies, this has already been budgeted in to their projections. This is something that they accounted for at the beginning, and now when we have 15 per cent left and we're going to be asked to take a percentage of decommissioning costs, a cost that we do not know and cannot control, that's something we weren't ready to take the risk for.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I remind the minister that the Terra Nova came in in 2019, two years ago almost. I'm shocked that we don't know what the cost would be to this date.

The Premier has said the oil is still in the ground. Oil in the ground is only good if it results in jobs and a revenue stream for the province.

How will this oil be used if the Terra Nova does not proceed? Is there a plan for a possible subsea tie-back?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite is shocked. Every question that he asks he is shocked. The reality is that we don't know everything, okay. I don't know if that's news to anybody, but certain things are unknown at this time. We would not be able to know them. We can have projections, we can have estimates, but we wouldn't be able to know them, nor would we have control.

Now, the reality is that there is an asset, there is oil still under that. We have no plans for a subsea tie-back. That's a comment that I've heard in the past. That's not our plan, that's not something that we would engage in.

What I will say is our attention solely to date has been trying to find a way to put half a billion dollars into jobs and into this project and asking, pleading with the partners to come together and find a way forward so that oil is taken out for the benefit of this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not shocked we never got an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Last week, when I asked about the sad case of a rogue investment advisor who defrauded six elderly clients out of their life savings, the minister was vague and deferred to future improvements of the Securities Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to help these seniors.

If the industry regulator has been pleading with government for years to bring in stronger regulations, what is the minister waiting for?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think financial security of our seniors is extremely important. It's incredibly unfortunate that someone defrauded these seniors. I can't comment on a specific situation, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that the current regulations do catch any specific examples that we're talking about.

If you look on the Order Paper you can see the Securities Act, where we are bringing in changes to strengthen the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

It's high time that we get this stuff done. You wonder why the public is so poisoned with everybody. It's just so long to get legislation done. Let's get on it and get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like the same thing we heard on the ATV legislation. The industry regulator organization of Canada has complained for years that their power in NL is all bark and no financial bite. Government has been aware of this problem since at least 2019. Now, six elderly residents have lost their life savings.

When, finally, is the minister going to act?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member asks a very important question about ATV safety and off-road vehicle safety, which is incredibly important to our government. I'm very sorry to the families and loved ones of those who've lost their lives and have been injured in an accident this year, Mr. Speaker, and any time.

We have done a comprehensive review of the legislation. We're recently in the final consultation stages. It's very complex legislation. We had to make sure all the right parties were consulted. I look forward to bringing legislation to the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, as is in my mandate letter.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

I look forward to that legislation.

As the province transitions to welcome visitors, many residents are still exceptionally frustrated with long delays to access services from Motor Registration. My office continues to hear from residents who are waiting a month or longer for an appointment.

Mr. Speaker: When is the minister going to open up her department for normal counter service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know Motor Registration Division is a very important service to the residents of the province and one that we take very seriously. In the last two seasons we've had to completely change how we deliver service to the residents of this province, Mr. Speaker. If you look across our province, in seven out of 11 offices you can get an appointment that same week, and in some of the other offices it is longer.

I thank the public for their patience. We're working with new technologies, focusing on user experience and resident experience to deliver more value for taxpayers. I take this responsibility very seriously and we are hoping to improve the experience for residents of the province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology stated that, contrary to the beliefs of the NDP, we are not prepared to give up today on the workers that are involved in the oil and gas sector.

Will the minister clarify how asking for a just and orderly transition plan to avoid the sudden and unmanageable shock, such as what we're seeing with the Terra Nova FPSO, is giving up on oil and gas workers and the communities who depend on them?

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

A. PARSONS: I thank the Member for the question.

I apologize because sometimes I do get confused, because there's a leader that appears outside and actually criticized us for putting $500 million into this to try to keep jobs here; whereas the Member inside asked questions about trying to transition. There is a confusion here. I don't know which speech I should listen to. There is someone outside who speaks for the NDP and went all over us about trying to put money into this, to try to keep it alive and, hence, to try to save jobs.

Again, I apologize to the speaker for the confusion; maybe somebody can help me out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked and pleased at that response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology said yesterday during Question Period that we will be launching a renewable energy plan, hopefully, sometime during 2021, and that's good to hear; however, we are almost halfway through 2021.

Will the minister provide details about how this plan is being or will be developed, who will have input into developing it and when we can expect to see a draft plan? Basically, what is the timeline?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hopefully, nothing that I say to the Member this time will be shocking, but I do hope to be able to try to please you with the answer that I give.

The reality is, as I said yesterday, I can't put a timeline on it, except to say that it is coming in 2021. Obviously, we will be speaking to, not just people within the department but our contacts all over the province, whether it be with Noia, whether it be with NEIA or whether it be with any of the stakeholders that are out there and have expertise in this.

We will want to draw from a wide range of experts on this so they will help formulate the basis for our plan going forward; one that we will obviously be very happy to table and to show everybody in the province when it is ready in 2021.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology: Will other groups, such as those concerned about the environment, play a role in developing a plan as well?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite.

As it relates to putting out a renewable energy plan, we will consult with experts in the renewable energy field. But I will say that as a plan like that comes forward, one group that we will consult with would be the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and multiple other departments will lead into this, whether it is the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs. There are a lot of people that play into this, the proper and best use of our resources in the renewable field.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the government has stated in the budget that the 911 services will be brought into the core government. I agree with the decision and completed a lot of work on this file. Many workers at 911 are experiencing anxiety, with possible job losses in their future.

What assurances can you give, Minister, to these employees that their jobs are safe in the very near future when you bring it into core government?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member opposite for his support of the position to bring NL911 into core services of government. We will be working with everyone at NL911 to ensure that all processes are streamlined for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we can save as much money as possible. Certainly, when we do that, we'll be talking about where they can position themselves in terms of jobs in the future, whether it be in this core government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of concerns, a lot of anxiety, with the workers, naturally. That is obvious and you can see the concerns.

I ask the minister: Can you get someone from your department or someone from Treasury Board to meet with the union so they can start consultation, so their workers can start on the ground and know if their jobs are safe and what they can do themselves to relieve the anxiety?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

This is an important question and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

We will be working with employees, with unions on this transformation. As the Member opposite noted, this was outlined in the Budget Speech but now, as we move towards implementation, we will be working with individuals. We'll be working with the departments that are coming within core government. We'll be working with the unions to make sure it is a seamless process and maximizing the opportunities, not just for the employees but also for the people of the province to make sure they get the best level of service as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, for a quick question.

E. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Can you confirm or give a timeline when your officials may be able to reach out to the union to discuss the concerns that the workers have at 911?

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

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

I am happy again to answer this question. As we move forward now from budget into implementation, we're putting in a process to make sure that where they move within core government, how the transition will occur will take place as seamlessly and as quickly as possible. We will be working with the employees to make this as functional and as quick as possible.

Mr. Speaker, within the next number of months, we'll be certainly making sure that this is done effectively and efficiently as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The background to this petition is as follows:

The Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of road infrastructure;

WHEREAS many residents commute outside the Southern Avalon region on a daily basis for work and pleasure. The region has an expanded commercial, residential and tourism sector increasing the volume of traffic on this highway each day;

THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To upgrade this important piece of road infrastructure to enhance the ease of the access to the Southern Avalon and accessibility for industry and others coming to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably the second or third time I've put this petition forward since we came back. It's a very important piece of infrastructure in our area. It's a road that's used extensively for truckers coming back and forth across the Island for crab fishing. There's a tourism section that's going to start now in July, hopefully – that's probably already started in some areas – with boat tours, Colony of Avalon, Mistaken Point. So many numerous tourist attractions along the way. It's a shortcut, too. Instead of going out around St. John's, it cuts a half hour, 45 minutes off people's drives when they are coming in for this tourism.

The condition of the road is deplorable in the midsection. I mean, they've done good work last year. They done four kilometres and the other end of Witless Bay Line has been done for three or four kilometres; but the midsection now, seven or eight kilometres, it is something that is desperately needed to be looked at, and hopefully we can get to do it.

I spoke also to some people that have motor homes that are driving across. If you're towing a trailer or driving a motor home, you know how bad it is when you hit these rough sections of highway. Not on the Trans-Canada, but on these side roads. It's important that you'd look at these pieces of road infrastructure. People are losing tires and rims and just delaying their trip. It can happen anywhere, but that section of the road it's happened a lot.

Also, I spoke to – as I've spoke before on this – motorcycle owners that see me and say don't forget to question or put in about the motorcycle drivers as well, because it's an obstacle to go drive in there. Hopefully, the department can have a look at it and upgrade that infrastructure.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

George's Brook-Milton became incorporated on May 18, 2018, after conducting its feasibility study and received their municipal planning area in 2020, for which a huge section – over half of the available land – has since been designated for agricultural purposes. The town, nor the residents were ever made aware of this designation until 2020;

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to rezone this agricultural development area, removing a development burden for the Town of George's Brook-Milton and the many households who unknowingly currently reside within this area.

If I may speak to the petition, briefly. I was part of the group that brought in the unincorporated area in 2018. We had no knowledge of the agricultural development zone coming into where current property owners are, Mr. Speaker. We always had it in mind where the agricultural development zone ended, and we were quite aware of that – many of the seniors in the community.

But I think it was decision of this government in 2018-19 to increase the agricultural development areas, which again I have no problem with. But they brought it right down into a community of landowners that now they find that the homes that they've lived in for years are now in an agricultural development zone.

So the purpose would be to increase our land and increase our self-sufficiency in food services. It is not to go on to personal land properties and restrict development into communities, when we do have so much in the Lethbridge agricultural zone. So we have lots there.

It seems like it was arbitrarily done. Arbitrarily done because we have homeowners now who find themselves on agricultural land, which they were not apprised of when they purchased the land decades and decades ago.

I would ask if the minister could come visit to have a look at this and see how it encroaches upon the community. We are big advocates of agricultural development and having zones in our province, but not taking in the households in the area of George's-Brook-Milton.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

I have an interesting petition here today. I believe it's directed at the Department of Education – and, in fact, it is – but there are implications for many departments and probably many MHAs in this House of Assembly.

Budget 2021 stated that government will be taking the appropriate steps to integrate the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District into the Department of Education. With this move to enhance investments in education, there will be opportunities to address inequities for the attraction of qualified teachers to all parts of the province and to all recognized education systems.

Certain schools are finding recruitment and retention further challenged as years of service for hiring purposes – i.e. seniority – is not recognized between private and public institutions, whereas years of service regarding pay scales is recognized.

Private schools, including the Mamu Tshishkutamashutau Innu Education, for example, find that teachers are reluctant to apply, despite offers of competitive compensation. An additional equity challenge is that teachers of private schools or schools systems are not members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the NLTA.

Therefore, we the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to recognize years of service from recognized public and private schools when determining seniority in the province. Furthermore, impediments should be removed so that the NLTA could represent teachers from both private schools and school systems, thereby supporting government's efficiency objectives.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, this independent role. I thank those who are bringing these interesting problems to my attention. My office is very busy and we're discovering many things. I am hearing the priority of government is around reconciliation. I'm fully supportive of it and so on, But we are constantly finding little stumbling blocks, little hurdles that exist in legislation, in policy that are keeping things back.

I go to the example of the Innu education system, but it applies also to other private schools that some of you, my colleagues in this room, would have in their own districts. In that as we try to attract and retain teachers, there is a reluctance to go into that system because any seniority they will have developed with that experience will not be recognized, should they return to the other.

So when I look at and having attended graduation ceremonies in Sheshatshiu over the last several years – which used to be zero, and now in the range of 20 – and the good progress they're making, only to encounter these kind of hurdles, I would ask the Minister of Education and government to take a look at this and see what we can do, especially with the changes being made in the department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I once again bring a petition to the House in increased support for Labrador West seniors. This one has 283 signatures on it. Every one I bring is well over the 200 mark; the first one I brought was over the 400 mark. So these are people who are concerned about themselves or their moms or their dads.

The reason for the petition is: The need of senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is still increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility to need to leave their home in order to afford to live and receive adequate care.

Additional housing options, including assisted living care facilities like throughout the rest of the province for seniors, have become a requirement for Labrador West. The requirement is not currently being met.

WHEREAS the seniors in our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes, where they have spent their life contributing to the prosperity and growth of the community; and

WHEREAS the means of the increasing number of senior residents in Labrador West to happily age in place are not currently available in the region;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in place and provide affordable housing options for seniors and assisted living care facilities for those requiring additional care.

Like I said, there are 283 signatures here. These individuals are themselves seniors or have seniors in their lives that are living in the region. These are people that want to keep the seniors in the community, keep seniors in Labrador West and provide the care and services that they require.

They helped build the community; it's their community just as much as anybody else's. Some of these seniors that are needing this service actually came to Lab West as very young people, or some were almost born there themselves. So we're getting to a place in our community where these people are going to need these services.

We're a young, vibrant community, but we have seniors who want to stay. It's just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. This is a problem that is new to the region, but it's not going to go away. It's something that needs to be addressed, something that needs to be looked at. I ask all the ministers that would be involved in this to have a look at seniors in Labrador West, the care that they're going to receive, the care they need and try to put the supports in place to build a seniors' system around there.

We don't have one. We're not as lucky or as fortunate, even as my colleague for Lake Melville, who has a seniors' complex there. They have the supports and wraparound services for seniors there. We don't have it in Lab West, but we're a comparable size as that community. We do need it, we don't have it and we really need people to pay attention and look at the seniors of Labrador West and how they're disadvantaged at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Member's petition around seniors and seniors' housing in Labrador West, that's something that we're certainly cognizant, through the work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and certainly through my department. We will be addressing many of those issues through our Housing and Homelessness Plan and working also with the federal government to find funding opportunities to meet that demand, which is not only prevalent in Lab West; it is true, really, through many communities throughout the province.

I appreciate the Member bringing the issue forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, before I get into my petition, I'd say: Congratulations, Minister. That was a good answer and very much respect for the House. Thank you.

The background of this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS there are no significant current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site, it is a world-class facility with potential to rejuvenate the local economy. The area has been troubled with the lack of local employment in today's economy. I find this one to be more poignant than ever now, with the work that we're looking to get done on the FPSO, on the Terra Nova. I would expect that there would be a longer term tenant. I think that's what we're really looking for here, because this is an asset of the province and to benefit the province. A long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and

WHEREAS the continued idling of this site is not in the best interests of the province;

THEREFORE, we, the residents of the area near Bull Arm Fabrication site, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get the Bull Arm Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a vision for a long-term viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, just looking at the signatures on this one – I've obviously been presenting this since I came to the House – these ones go back to October 24, 2019, and they're signed by people in Chapel Arm. It does affect people of a vast area. It's a very world-class facility.

The reason why I'm presenting this today is because I understand there are some people that are interested in taking over the Bull Arm Fabrication site. I just want to make sure, I guess, that the minister is working on this file as well because we'd like to see – I know that the North Sea Group would certainly be interested in sitting down and discussing long-term tenancy of the Bull Arm Fabrication site.

Hopefully, we can get somewhere in the vicinity of a 25-year deal instead of a five-year deal. I'm not saying that DF Barnes is not doing a good job out there or anything like that. They're a very reputable company, but I don't think we invested in the Bull Arm Fabrication site to become kind of the moratorium of our oil and gas industry.

I'd rather it be up and running and we can rejuvenate it and get it going; now is the time. Like I heard recently, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time to plant a tree is today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 9.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed to Private Members' Day on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for routine proceedings and to conduct government business, and that if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 10.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2021.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it's always a pleasure to speak in this House and to represent the fine people of Topsail - Paradise. One of the quotes that I tried to live by, as much as I can, is: Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching. I try to live by that, but I am a little taken back by some of the remarks in the House of Assembly, just yesterday, made by the Premier.

I know we all make mistakes, I know nobody is perfect but you have to recognize you've made a mistake and you have to take responsibility for that. The key word is to recognize that mistake. Not wait for someone to advise you, not wait for someone to coach you on how to respond. You don't need coaching or advisement to say you're sorry and apologize.

There has been a trend here. We know recently the Premier made disparaging remarks about a news reporter, we know the Premier, essentially, told Memorial University to grow up and, of course, just recently, the Premier questioning our Leader of the Opposition's intelligence. That's only a couple of examples. If I stood up in this House and I called someone stupid, dense, brainless or an idiot, everyone in this House would be on their feet on a point of order. It doesn't matter the words you use, it's the intent. You shouldn't have to ask yourself if you thought the other person was offended: you need to ask yourself if your comments were offensive.

Now, I said it earlier, we all make mistakes. I've noted, the Clerk actually said to me when I was first elected: Welcome to the fishbowl. Everyone is looking at you swimming around, nowhere to hide unless there is a plant in the middle of the bowl but you can't hide long. We are under tremendous scrutiny. So I hope all Members, the Premier included, takes this as a learning moment because we all need to do better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: When so many people, children especially, are bullied and harassed on a daily basis for any array of issues – we only need to see the pride flags being tore down recently – we have to do better as community leaders, as Party leaders and as Premier. We all have to do better as people.

Now, today in the House of Assembly, we all know, and we see it everyday, some Members are more easily agitated than others. We need to be empathetic because none of us are aware of what the other 39 Members are going through; how their day started, what they're dealing with at home. We all need to realize that. We all need to take responsibility for what we say.

I'm thinking of December now, I think it was December 4, there was an article came out in The Telegram and it was in response to a couple of Liberal MHAs at the time had arranged some fundraising events in the middle of COVID. They took some backlash on that.

I look at the Premier, the Premier was actually quoted in The Telegram – and I'll see if I can get it here – as saying: “As leaders, we need to not just meet standards, we need to exceed them and live by example.” Well, Mr. Premier, you have to start living by your own words. I'm hoping they'll take this as a learning moment. You have to start practicing what you preach because as a leader you affect, not just this House of Assembly, you affect everyone that listens to you, everyone that looks up to you.

I think, too, when we come in this House – Pink Shirt Day; anti-bullying. This is children now telling us this. Children have a grasp on bullying and harassment. It's not just one day, it's every day. Every day should be anti-bullying day. The motto was: Bullying Stops Here. That applies right here. We should not be dealing with insults and barbs in this House of Assembly.

Now, yes, we get into heated discussions and you throw out a witty quip. There's a little difference, but I think we all know when you cross the line.

I commend the Speaker. I firmly believe we elected the right – although there were some fine candidates for Speaker of the House, some real fine candidates – I do say I think we have the right person in the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: I do appreciate your opening comments today. I certainly trust that you'll continue to do your best to run this House in a cordial and polite manner as best you can. Thank you for that. It's not an easy job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: I'd be remiss, of course, if I didn't speak a bit about the Terra Nova Project. I think we all know what that means to our province. I can't even imagine the stress and anxiety that the workers, their families and that are under. We can always talk that there's hope and there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but that certainly doesn't help them currently. I can appreciate that. We all speak with passion on that.

I don't think anybody in this House, on this side as well – nobody is suggesting that we bail out the large oil companies or we carelessly throw money at a project with no return on investment. What we are asking is that in the words of this government that have said many times, that we leave no stone unturned when we look at this.

I think it was the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor who mentioned the difference between a risky undertaking and risks. Something that's risky is something that's full of the possibility of danger, failure or loss. Risk is the potential exposure to danger. There is a difference. I understand the Members opposite spoke to this as risks. They did not come out and say this is risky. I stand to be corrected if they did.

With any investment, there is risk. There is a balancing process. You're weighing pros and cons. You may do a SWOT analysis. You may look at return on investment. You would look at opportunity cost. I don't have any confidence or level of confidence that a complete and full analysis has been done.

I think we asked questions today, but we certainly asked questions yesterday, and government could not tell us the benefits this province would receive through HST, personal income tax and spinoff jobs. They could not tell us what would be lost in that respect. They could not tell us the value of the indirect benefits to the province from the Terra Nova Project extension. Government could not tell us the cost to assist workers who lose their jobs if the Terra Nova Project should shut down.

These are not issues that are covered by a non-disclosure agreement; this is the work of government. This analysis should be done. This analysis should be on the tip of the tongue. And I agree, we were not elected to look after the big oil companies. We were elected to look after the people here in this province. We were elected to do the best we can for them. I think we really need to look at the cost of this project not going ahead and what it does in terms of supports we may have to come up with and the like.

I have no reason, right now, to distrust the comments of the responsible minister that they're doing everything. But it is harder to believe when we cannot get answers to analysis that should be done. I would hope that government will complete a full analysis, not just of the oil but what the effect will be on our province, our workers and their health and where they're going to be and if they're going to stay here. It probably should already be done. I'd be happy if I hear that it is already done but, again, I don't have confidence in terms of the answers we have been getting. This is analysis that certainly can be completed outside of the non-disclosure agreements.

I would note the government mentioned to us that there is only a marginal return potential. Outside of the marginal return, I think when you look deeper in terms of keeping people employed, keeping families here, that marginal return becomes a little larger. I think we need to have a greater look at that. I know here we are at the final day; hopefully, there will be more negotiations ongoing. I hope so. There are a lot of people in this industry involved with this Terra Nova Project that are anxiously awaiting some positive news, so hopefully that will occur.

I do want to talk about the budget; that is the motion we're speaking to. We're going to be asked to vote on this. People ask: Are you going to vote on the budget? They'll say: What are you voting on? We'll say: The budget. And they'll say: Oh, that's good. But when I really look deeper, I say: Well, what are we really voting on? This budget is like you're sat down to a meal and they lay it on a placemat and it looks all good, but you don't know what the meal is and you don't know what's being served. A lovely placemat, but you don't know what's being served.

There are some good pieces in the budget, but there's not enough analysis to tell us what is on the plate. I mean, at a bare minimum you would ask to see the menu. I don't know if we've seen the menu. But, I mean, to vote on this budget without truly knowing the full analysis behind it, the full data and the full information, from my point of view, I don't think it's what the residents of Topsail - Paradise would want me to do in terms of blindly voting on something we don't have the full details on. Like I said, there are a number of issues or pieces in this budget that are good, there are a number of things that are continued on, but there's also a lot of analysis that is absent and that's something that we really need to have in front of us to make a proper decision.

I go back to the comments on Terra Nova, you know, talking risk, talking risky. This is no different. In fact, this is probably more important as the budget for the whole province. We don't have all of the background information to vote on this, and so I don't even know what he risks are because we don't have that information. How are we going to create more efficient operations? What is going to be done in departments like Health? Don't know. How much money is going to be saved? What's going to be done here and there? Not truly outlined there. That's information we need because we all realize the financial position we are in and we all realize that some big decisions have to be made, but we also realize that they have to be informed decisions. To vote on this budget without being fully informed, in my mind, would not be proper.

We are doing a budget here and we're waiting on some key reports to come in. I guess the real scare we've gotten is from the Premier's Moya Greene report and that report certainly puts the scare in all of us with some of the comments and some of the suggestions, but again, lacking on detail.

As I've said before, I've had some presentation from Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis on the Health Accord Newfoundland and Labrador and I'm encouraged by that. The reason I'm encouraged by that is because these individuals certainly come across as having a handle on what they've been asked to do. They certainly seem to have a plan forward. They certainly seem to be looking towards decisions, programs and services that are fully documented and supported by data, facts and analysis. The only unfortunate thing for that is we're not seeing that until December. I look forward to that.

But with this current budget, I do not have the same level of confidence. It's not that I don't disagree that we need to make some difficult decisions and that, but it's because I don't know what they're based on. The detail is not there. There are some parts of it, again, that I certainly applaud. There are parts there that make sense but, overall, some of the larger decisions, how are you going to do this, how are you going to move along, some of that is not there. It's not in the notes.

I look at the budgets over the years for this government. All governments do it, but I just look at the current government. When they put out their budget document, there's always a little motto or a little saying on the cover; there's a title. In 2016, it was Restoring Fiscal Confidence and Accountability. That was 2016. Not quite sure we have fiscal confidence – not quite sure.

In 2017, it was Realizing Our Potential. That's five years ago now: Realizing Our Potential. I'm not sure that's happened. In 2018, we're starting to get some nice titles: Building for Our Future. I can honestly say I haven't seen any huge steps in building our future. We can go back to Muskrat Falls and talk about that. I wasn't involved in it when it came in but, of course, the current government now have six years to look after mitigation and they've talked to this, how it affects our future generations. I haven't seen anything happen there.

So we're building our future and we move into 2019 and we're Working towards a brighter future. Again, haven't seen the future; now we're building to a brighter future.

In 2020, it was Today. Tomorrow. Together. Again, you talk about The Way Forward; you talk about this. I'm not seeing any huge accomplishments there. In fact, I'm told – and certainly, if someone can tell me otherwise – that the family that was on the cover of that document, Today. Tomorrow. Together., an immigrant family, and they were praised for being active, I'm told they're no longer in the province. Now, I stand to be corrected on that, but that's what I'm told. So Today. Tomorrow. Together., we certainly have to start looking at making some real, real change.

Speaking of change, here we are in 2021 and the budget is Change starts here. After five years of realizing our future, building our future, building a brighter future, restoring fiscal confidence, after five years Change starts here. We're finally to a place where maybe something's going to start. But again, my doubts, because this particular budget I do not see the full details that would lead me to believe that change will definitely start here. I don't see it. Right from this point on, I'm not prepared to vote on something I don't have the full details on.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

It's always a pleasure to speak to some aspect of the budget, whether it be a money bill, loan, supply. It's a good opportunity to talk about a variety of things that are going on.

What I thought I would do is summarize the experience that was the last couple of weeks in Estimates. What I've done is go through each of the departments that I participated in. In fact, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, I did miss just the one. I missed the Department of Finance, but I caught the others. Certainly, it's an excellent way to learn a lot about how government works, what the minister and their staff are thinking, and it's a great way to – from my perspective – to explore different policies, how they are affecting the district I represent in Lake Melville or broader Labrador, or of course right across the province.

So what I'd like to do is just run through some of the items. I'm not going to go through them in detail, because there were a lot of Estimates sessions and I know I only have less than 20 minutes. I'm just going to sketch on some of them and then comment as I go. Let's start at the beginning in terms of the book and the budget Estimates.

Digital Government and Service NL: Some of the items that I brought up when we were going through them that apply to a relatively small percentage of our population, but it's very much an appreciative one, and that's the francophone-speaking people of this province.

It was curious, Mr. Speaker, when I was asking the department – at one time I really enjoyed being the minister responsible for Francophone Affairs, and the federal government's support, some $350,000, has not changed to this province in a long, long time. I can remember 2015, '16, '17, lobbying the then federal minister responsible for the need to look at the formula, to look at the situation and recognize Newfoundland and Labrador is doing a lot with a very small and very capable and dedicated crew, but there's been no increased support for years and years.

It's amazing what they have been able to do, but we really need to somehow convince the federal government that if they're serious about fulfilling Charter obligations across this country, all jurisdictions, no matter how big or small, need to be treated equitably.

Another item that's very important for Labrador, and I would suspect other rural parts of this province, and that's around electrical inspections. We often have work sites – and we have a very short construction season – where if you don't have a Red Seal-endorsed electrical inspector, you need to have one flown in. I explored with the minister the idea of, perhaps, engaging a private sector company where somebody would be certified to take a look at those building sites. It's actually holding up construction. I can look across Labrador and give you many examples of where things are held up just because we're not thinking of more clever ways to provide these inspections.

One that's near and dear to my heart, and certainly broader across the province, and that is on taxi insurance. It was good to see the various steps that the department is making to reduce rates and pressures on taxi drivers and owners who need to get those vehicles insured to make sure that our roads are safe. A lot of good moves there, so I thank them for that.

One lingering issue in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is – and while it's commendable that some 98 per cent of online registrations and I think some other features around Motor Vehicle Registration are now done online, there are still a lot of people that need support. I feel that we need to make sure those phone lines are available and that people are able to help those who would prefer just to deal in person or at least have somebody on the other end of a line instead of a prompt on an online app or something like that.

In the Treasury Board meetings, just one little item, I've raised it several times, but I am still curious as to whether or not our province can take advantage of this spike in building materials, particularly around wood, whether or not we, as a Crown, could be making more as we sell our wood products, the stumpage; the stumpage royalties. I see opportunities to do it. Again, I point out Alberta which has just recently done this. They more than doubled their stumpage rate. It's represented millions and millions of dollars to the coffers of their Treasury. Guess what? It does not affect the end retailer because it's frankly the processors that are able to charge a very high fee right now for their products and the raw materials. We're basically – relatively speaking – giving them away.

In terms of Public Procurement: It's an interesting aspect, I think, for many of us to think about. It's one I do believe government is sensitive of. I was once responsible for that department as well. It's packaging and bundling the opportunities for tenders, for bidding, and making sure that where there are local service opportunities and where they can be bundled appropriately that that is, in fact, done. There's nothing worse than seeing capability being developed in Labrador or another rural part of this province, only to see an opportunity show up on the doorstep, yet that local capacity is frankly just left out of the bidding process all together. They have to run around and try to figure out who is going to win this contract and then try to make sure that we, as a government, and they, as a successful bidder, think to engage local staff and local services. Boy, we continue to struggle with this one.

I don't know, I look to the Impact Benefit Agreements that Indigenous organization, for example, has established. Voisey's Bay is a prime example of what was frankly a very successful negotiation. You look at that project now, it's been operating for well over 20 years. I remember being in the room when both signatories to the province and the company agreed with their membership to support the project, and the celebration. The fact that that deal was done right. It has continued to prove very successful. I think we have a lot of things to learn there.

Under Transportation and Infrastructure: I will continue to speak about Route 520. I can appreciate the pressure that the minister is under; however, we did have this road identified as a priority two years ago and with the fact that the budget remains the same, the highway is continuing to get worse. I can only hope that this gets addressed immediately and we can start getting some work done. I know there is some recent tender calls for some bridge work, and we're not going to turn that away. The bridges certainly also need to be tended too, but I can tell you what's really bad is the asphalt and the rollercoaster of a ride that is between Sheshatshiu and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

I also want to continue to speak about the fact that we have some 1,800 kilometres of Trans-Labrador Highway and we really don't have any emergency or other convenience services between those communities. Some of those gaps are as great as 400 kilometres. I challenge anyone, when they get in their vehicles at the end of the week and they leave here, just to think about that. You would set sail for Gander or points further west and if you needed to stop for a washroom, for gas, for any communications knowing that it would not be there for you: that's why I will continue to speak about this.

I am pleased, and I want to mention his name again, the ADM in Marine Services, John Baker. There are a lot of great staff out there, John is just a guy that I happen to work a lot with. He's a guy who listens and is very available to so many of the issues that I have to deal with. The moves around the Black Tickle ferry, and I just know each spring I will get the same kinds of calls from people who used to live in Black Tickle, they want to make this annual pilgrimage home and knowing that the ferry will be running this year – I think it goes on the 25th of June, which is the time that is actually convenient for returning residents to go back and set up for the summer, it will actually work very well for them. I thank the department for that accommodation.

Another study that is very near and dear to my heart, I have a lot of experience around it, there are two: the Nain Airstrip. If you've ever had to land in an aircraft in Nain, it is something that will get your attention: even on the calmest of days. Thank goodness we have very experienced and capable pilots that fly along our coast for us because I can tell you, it is not for the faint of heart. If you have a strong wind and a predominant wind coming out of the west and you're swinging in there and you have to turn your nose in one direction and then at the last minute suddenly turn to hit that runway. We are just very fortunate that we haven't had a serious incident. We really need to address that. So I make that plug for there.

Also, if you look at the map you wouldn't believe it, but I know the route very well, from North West River to Postville it actually is a very straightforward route along that direction, and I've flown it many times. While I'm glad to see progress being made on the feasibility study – and I remember my colleague from Torngat Mountains was asking: Is this a pre-feasibility or a feasibility study? I'm not sure we got a good answer. The fact of the matter is let this be the study from which tenders can be called to start that work.

Under Justice and Public Safety: It's good to see the progress going on at the Labrador Correctional Centre. There are substantial millions of dollars being allocated for the expansion. It's also really important that in addition to providing, now, accommodations for – women who need to be incarcerated traditionally have been going to Clarenville. Now, with the completion of this work, they will be able to, at least, stay in Labrador where their family supports will be there for them and other cultural supports.

It is that very point, on the cultural supports, that is so important and I've been witness to some of these special sessions where people give of their time to go down and provide that cultural – it's almost a therapy when you've been able to witness, whether it be cleaning a partridge or a ptarmigan, making snowshoes or just talking about life on the land and the healing, therapeutic aspects that can come from that. It's very important for people who are struggling to find a way in life.

Sentencing circles was another point that I spoke about. I think the minister will be interested to, hopefully, see and experience others that will be lobbying for these kinds of opportunities. I feel that they could really help, especially – it's not going to help overnight, but over the long term it will be really important.

With Environment and Climate Change: Another one of my favourite departments and one that I know very well, both politically and in my previous professional life. We talked a lot about the rationale for the flood-risk mapping. Why did we spend $1 million completing such a comprehensive study, such a state-of-the-art study if we are not going to really work with its conclusions and work with what it's telling us? I challenge the department to please consider ways to sit down with the residents and explain exactly what the findings mean, what it means for their livelihood and what it means for their property. I believe we need to carry on the dialogue.

Just a few weeks ago, again, as the water started to rise and suddenly the panic hit. We've got a huge river; we've got the province's largest river flowing, unfortunately, into an estuary situation where we've got a very fragile village in the lower parts of what we call the valley, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where the shoreline is being eroded away. We need to get in there. I'm willing to work with the minister and his department and we'll see what we can do to address that.

Contaminated sites were another aspect. I just want to make a plug for – so much of the debate yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, for Terra Nova was around the transition. My colleague for St. John's Centre spoke about the importance of getting that transition plan right. Well, there's a really interesting initiative that The Harris Centre has set up – I worked with them very closely last year when that was going on – climate change, economy and society. There are eight sessions that are being held with a variety of stakeholders.

The interesting part about this is that you have both industrial proponents, you have oil and gas people and you have people with an environmental background, and they're collectively addressing key points such as: How does a jurisdiction, which produces 5.6 per cent of the oil in this country – how do we transfer now successfully with all of these amazing reserves we have offshore. How do we transfer to a situation where we can recognize the climate is changing dramatically? Moving to net zero in 2050? Well you know what, we need to start moving to net zero like yesterday. Anyway, a lot of these questions are being tackled. I would encourage the department to continue to support them and perhaps, most importantly, to pay attention to the conclusions coming out of those discussions.

With Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, I spoke about the stumpage rates and enforcement officers, and making sure we have them deployed at the right places at the right time. The hunting that's going on of caribou, south of where I live, south of the Churchill River, Mishta-shipu by folks from Quebec, is becoming – not is becoming, it has become – a very serious problem. So much of the caribou and those small little herds – I used to fly them back in the 1980s and '90s; things like the Dominion Lake herd and the St. Augustin herd – they don't even exist anymore.

I'm very concerned that any woodland caribou that are left down there, if there are in fact any leftover in the Birchy Lake area – I was thinking they're basically gone. Perhaps there are a few animals but given the resources that are being deployed to find them, and make a stand politically between our provinces, we really need to fix this out. My recommendation there to the minister is to re-establish the Labrador Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. It's filled with bright minds from both Quebec, Labrador and the federal government, as well as other stakeholders. I feel that that could provide him with a lot of clean and clear direction as to how to move forward. It's a tough, tangly situation but the discussion has to go on in the boardroom, not out in the field with loaded rifles.

I'm very pleased to see the movement on the Animal Health and Protection Act, that the entire act is being reviewed. My CA is a senior person with the SPCA in Labrador. I get to see upfront, close and personal the challenges that the SPCA and other organizations have around animal abuse and the need to take care of our four-legged friends. I'm glad for that review.

With Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we had good discussion. I think the challenge that we have as a government, and folks in this House of Assembly really, is how do we and what do we and where do 46,000 residents of our province who are living in unincorporated districts – how do we properly provide services to them and how do they, in fairness, provide their own financial support for those services.

Under Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, I am curious still to understand the demise of Welcome NL. I saw it as a great initiative. It disappeared, frankly, about two years ago. It's meant to help those new Canadians find employers and readily settle into this province and, better yet, stay.

Also, I'm frustrated with so much of the provincial certification programs, engineering, medical care and so on, where we have – I get off that plane, sometimes on a Sunday night, and I probably have an engineer from North Africa or Eastern Europe who's driving a taxi because that's the only service that we will recognize them being capable of, despite years of training. Some of them have even served as professors that I've met. I've met a pile of them. I have their names. They're very frustrated. I really feel we need to find a better system. There has to be mentoring that can happen to get these people in the workforce.

Under Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, again, I want to just compliment the department for pulling off – and I look at this House of Assembly. Under the pandemic, so much of things that were planned over the last 16 months or so where you've heard the common refrain of: delayed by the pandemic, delayed by the pandemic. Well, guess what? That Caribou monument, the final one in Gallipoli, was not delayed by the pandemic. A dedicated international team, multi-organizational, all threw their efforts at that. It was done and it's a beautiful job. I just can't wait to see a delegation from this province go and join our Turkish friends with an unveiling.

I also want to put a quick plug in for Expedition 51º. It's a bit of French and English at the same time. It's a combination of Quebec and Destination Labrador looking at joint branding around tourism and getting our link together as we reach into Eastern Canada. Really important.

CSSD: A really big challenge is the number of vacancies under our social worker caseload. It is really high in Labrador. The department informed me that we have 71 vacancies right now for social workers. We really need to get that figured out.

Under Education, early childhood educators: The big issue right now – and I've raised it as a petition – we need in-person training. We have spaces; we just spent a lot of money as a government to put up Pumpkin House and helped other facilities get in place. We don't have people to run them. I'm trying to get an estimate. It is somewhere between 100 and 200 families with their children, waiting to get into a regulated daycare facility. We really have to get that figured out.

Health and Community Services: I didn't mean to save it for last but, obviously, it's the number one challenge for any of our MHAs. I thank everybody. I thank all the team for all that they're doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER (Warr): Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great honour to speak today on the main motion of the budget on behalf of the constituents of Placentia West - Bellevue that I'm so proud to be in this House to represent in this 50th General Assembly.

The budget really affects us all. Having a big district like I have, it really affects us in many different ways. One of the things I would like to touch on is how industrial my district is. If we can get some of the industry back up and running to full capacity, I think we'd be well on our way to very much a growth economy.

I just did a petition on Bull Arm; there is Vale in Long Harbour. We have the refinery and the state-of-the-art fish plant there in Arnold's Cove with major investment. We have Grieg down in Marystown; we have the Cow Head facility in Marystown. None of these are really up to capacity.

Mr. Speaker, these entities and these industrial facilities were in trouble long before COVID. So it's not really something we can blame on COVID, but it is something that we need to come together and make sure that we can utilize our assets to the benefit of our province, as opposed to selling off our assets just to keep the lights on.

At the end of the day, somebody can offer me $10,000 for my $5,000 car, but I still have to get home. So the $10,000 is really not much good to me at that point if I still need something to drive. Yes, I can go out and buy another car, but in the meantime why not utilize the one to the best of my ability and get the most out of it that I already have.

We do have great infrastructure, but the biggest asset that we have in our province is our workers. Our workers leave this province en masse all the time to go and be rotational workers and stuff like that. They're the best of the best in these companies that are hiring them throughout the world. So if we can get up and running with our industry, then obviously these are people that would love to come back and not be rotational workers. I don't think they'd have a problem being a rotational worker from, let's say, Terrenceville going to Bull Arm or somebody from Chance Cove working in the refinery.

So like I said, it affects us all. It's something that we have to focus on because, right now, really what we need is to improve the provincial coffers to afford these budgets. We're just north of $8.5 billion on a budget that, for a lot of people, it's hard to wrap their head around that kind of numbers. I think it's incumbent on us all to find these efficiencies, as was determined through our Estimates for CSSD. Because when you have the most vulnerable people in the province that need services, then we need to have these wraparound services and tertiary services that they can avail of at a moment's notice. Because that's the way things come up. It's not like we can plan for something that is acute two months out.

So like I said, it's good to see the new programs. The minister actually talked about the new transportation program for low-income families, seniors and people living with disabilities. It's a very good hand up for these people, because now they're able to avail of some of the programming that's in their area and be part of probably their 50-plus club or be able to go out and do some seniors' yoga on the soccer field or whatever.

We've learned from COVID, we just have to make sure that we give our people a chance to succeed and enjoy their life to the best of their ability. Again, that comes down to, for our seniors, having help with their eyes, their ears and their teeth. I think that's incumbent on us all. I never ever would have imagined that somebody would fall below the threshold, after retirement, of not having insurance. That kind of bothers me and I think we could be better. Because like I said before, these are the people that trail-blazed for us and gave us an opportunity to be here. I think it's incumbent on us all to certainly have that respect and see what we can do for our seniors.

One of the biggest issues I really have with the budget is that it's kind of carried over from last year, which is somewhat understandable. But to not have any cost-benefit analysis for some of the things that we're asking about, it's hard to ratify this contract based on the vague information that was in some of the different sectors. I will note that one of the initiatives that I've been fighting for since day one in here is the Wi-Fi and cell service. To see that kind of an initiative now, brings us that much closer to the 21st century, which we're already 21 years into.

I guess I'm a firm believer that if these big companies – we talk about these multinational, profitable oil companies then we should probably talk about these national media companies that are certainly seeing numbers in the billions as well. They can't just come to our province and go where the concentration of people are to get the largest stipend. I think it's an opportunity for government to let them know that if they want to do business here, then they have to really consider doing business outside the overpass as well and not just the big centres.

Just from a personal side, we're digitizing government, everything is coming down to emails and send your form via email or text or anything like that, but we're not realizing that not everybody in the province has that opportunity, just for the simple fact that the services are not there, Mr. Speaker. I think that we are in a day and age where it's kind of second nature that we would have these kind of entities in place so that we can avail of them.

Like I said on a personal side, for personal households is what I mean. We're sending kids home to do their education online. That's kind of at a disadvantage for some kids, for the simple fact that they don't have the availability of Wi-Fi and cell coverage. It's pretty difficult for them to carry on and have the same experience or opportunity. Let's say a kid in Grade 11 in my district or a kid in Grade 11 in St. John's, probably having two different experiences based on the Wi-Fi and cell coverage. That's just one entity of it.

Another side, I guess, that I looked at this from was the business side of it. When you talk about the business side of Wi-Fi and cell coverage, then that's second nature to them. It's probably that they're looking at what the next best thing is for communication. There's nobody coming here and taking a drive in a car to check out the Bull Arm site and not want to be on their phone for that hour-and-a-half drive. They're not going down to Bull Arm and getting on the pay phone to call back to their company to see if it's a good deal or not. Like I said, from a business perspective, it's incumbent on us all to get those communication services in place so that some of this redundancy or bureaucracy doesn't happen between these business-to-business sales.

One of the bigger ones, I guess, from my side of things for Wi-Fi and cell coverage is really the virtual medical care. It's something that I can see being very prevalent in our society quite soon. Virtual medical care, not everybody needs to go to see a doctor physically to get an update or report or anything like that, so I think with the investment in Wi-Fi and cell coverage, we're actually going to free up some of our doctors' time and be able to probably get more people in to see them.

The issue, really, is that we're in a pandemic and we've cut back some of those services. It would be nice that now that we have a reopening plan and stuff like that, we can eliminate this epidemic we've created inside of a pandemic in the fact that people's needs didn't go away with the pandemic. They still need to get in and get their tests and their X-rays and their scans and all this kind of stuff. I know we want to protect our front-line workers, but we have to make sure that we are getting these timely appointments adhered to and make sure that people are getting the care. We've okayed all this money for the health care department; let's make sure that we're getting the proper outcomes. I think with Wi-Fi and cell coverage being prevalent to all, that will be a lot easier in the very rural parts of our province.

Another big one for me – and I volunteered all of my life. I have 16 volunteer fire departments in my district and Wi-Fi and cell coverage would be so much more important to them just knowing who's on the scene. As we try and regionalize some of our services, it would be no sense that we won't be able to be in contact with somebody that was out on the highway. The Trans-Canada part is spotty in places, but at least there's a great prevalence of cell coverage.

But, like I mentioned yesterday, I would love to work on the Burin Peninsula, especially with my colleague from Burin - Grand Bank, despite our strip or anything like that, because me and the MHA for Burin - Grand Bank have known each other for a long time and have had a very cordial relationship. I look forward to working with him on that because a lot of the people in his district are good friends of mine as well and a lot of people in my district are quite familiar with the former mayor of St. Lawrence.

Like I said, I want to make sure that we're all working together to make sure that we can bring these services to the residents of the province to make life easier, I guess, because we are in a digital age and there's no sense in talking about these services until we wrap them around everybody in the province.

The big thing that we talked about this year is tourism and how the tourism operators have had such a hard go of it, really, because of COVID and everybody being shut down. But one thing I did notice in the last year in my district is that our walking trails are becoming some of the highly sought-after destinations in the province, especially Chance Cove. If anybody hasn't had a chance to get out to the Chance Cove trail, I would highly recommend it. I did it a couple of weeks ago, about a month ago, probably, myself and my assistance, actually. We're probably not in the best of shape for a young fella and an older fella. In the meantime, we would certainly do it again. I don't know if we would need to take shortcuts next time.

In the meantime, it was so beautiful and so picturesque that it really made our day. It was really a good hike for us, for sure. I commend the people in Chance Cove that are working on the trail. There is some more money being infused, I believe, soon. The advancements that have been made on that trail since I became aware of it, I guess, in May 2019, has been pretty tremendous.

Just talking about Chance Cove for a second, there are some certainly great challenges when it comes to their roads, but their priority when I first got in was their water. I do get some compliments, I guess, that it's nice to turn on the tap and be able to drink the water, but now it's turned into fixing the roads again. I'm here for you Chance Cove. I'm working on it and when the minister and I meet, your roads are certainly on the list as well.

The other trails are Otter Rub and the Bordeaux Walking Trail. There's a new trail, Center Hill in Sunnyside. The Cleary Hiking Trail in CBC. You can go and probably stay at the Fiddler's Green or you can stay at The Killick. There are a couple of opportunities; there's the Arnold's Cove Inn as well. You can get three or four trails done there in those few days, if you want to stay in the area.

There are lots of beautiful attractions that, like I said, just get out and explore. Actually, in Arnold's Cove, they have a really good walk around the town with their app about the homes that were brought in from the islands, Mr. Speaker. It's quite interesting because as you get to each destination the app actually tells you the story of that house and the people from that house and the reasons for coming over and stuff like that. Right in Southern Harbour, we have Paddy Miller's house, it was the first one brought across Placentia Bay.

My buddy Dale Ryan, who's an artist originally from Southern Harbour, did a depiction of Paddy Miller's house coming across the harbour. I was lucky enough to be able to avail of one of those off my good friend. Consequently, a lot of his art is in many different parts of the world that I've sent out to different friends and stuff like that. I commend him on that. I know he has a new series ready to go. If anybody likes good Newfoundland artists, check out Mr. Dale Ryan. I think you'll be quite impressed.

Like I said, when you have a large district, not only is it industrial, but it comes down to having a lot of towns. A lot of these towns have the same needs, whether it's roads, care for seniors, certainly Wi-Fi and cell service. While we do have a pretty industrial district, it's incumbent on us to realize that it's not just industry. It is tourism and it is a lot of really great spots to shop and stuff in my district.

When you go down to the Marystown area, it's quite beautiful. Anybody that goes to Marystown, I would recommend you go look at Marystown from the Marymount. As I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you've probably seen it from that perspective, which it really opens up your eyes to the size of Marystown and the beauty of the longest ice-free harbour in North America. That's a pretty good moniker to have. Like I said, around that area the people make it a million times nicer. So anybody that goes down to the Marystown area or anywhere down the Burin Peninsula, stop off at the Tea Rose there that the Placentia West Development Association has to offer. They have the EcoMuseum there. It's a national museum that was acknowledged about a year and a half ago or probably two years ago now. It's beautiful.

Like I said, there are lots of areas to avail of in my district. For anybody that's planning a staycation or anything like that, come stay and have fun because the people in our district are the real resource here.

I'm here to work with every town. I treat everybody the same, and in saying that I don't take things personally. Anybody can come to me with anything. I don't judge people and I represent everybody with the same integrity and respect –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DWYER: – as I do represent them here in this House and at all their functions.

The last thing I will say is that I hope that the Bull Arm site will get a long-term proponent soon. Hopefully, the minister will be talking to the many groups that are interested in taking over this site.

The one thing that I always say, if you can be anything in this world, be kind. Because you don't know what somebody dealt with yesterday, you don't know what somebody's dealing with today and you don't know what's facing them tomorrow. So if we can be anything in this world, please, be kind.

The last thing I'll leave on is that I want to acknowledge, again, Pride Month. I think everybody deserves the opportunity to live their best life. Let's give everybody that opportunity. Let's look out for our seniors, our people living with disabilities and let's get our industry back and running so we can get these programs availed of.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's indeed a privilege to be able to speak in this hon. House today to represent the people of the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate the confidence that they put in me to have me here and represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to speak on the Estimates that we went through last week. As a new Member to this House, it was certainly an experience to sit in Estimates. I had the privilege of being on the Social Services Committee. I'd like to first of all thank the MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's for doing such a great job of chairing those Estimates. I have to say it was very professional and I'd like to acknowledge that.

Thanks to my colleague from Harbour Main, I was nominated as Vice-Chair. I very much appreciate the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's for doing such a great job that I didn't have to step in, Mr. Speaker. I have to say kudos to her and great job on doing that.

I had the privilege of sitting in on all the Estimates under Social Services: Justice and Public Safety, Education, Health, CSSD and, of course, Municipal Affairs. I'd like to thank all the ministers and, of course, their staff for the planning and preparation that went in to all of those Estimates. A professional crew, no doubt.

My predecessor Mr. Parsons said: If you want to learn, listen to the staff. They had some great information that we shared. Of course, there were great questions asked by the Opposition, by the Members of the Third Party, by the independents, no doubt. It was a great learning experience for me. I do appreciate all of the Estimates that I sat in on – I also sat in on others, of course, but today I'm going to focus on Municipal Affairs, my shadow Cabinet.

As I said, this was a new process for me; I did learn quite a lot. I would like to thank the hon. minister for her work done on the Estimates as well, as to members of her department. With respect to the information that I requested during the Estimates that were followed up with, with respect to Municipal Operating Grants, the gas tax approvals, the Special Assistance Grants and the Community Enhancement Employment Program, all of these are essential to all municipalities across our province, Mr. Speaker. They are quite important.

Municipalities rely and depend upon these various funding opportunities for the benefit of their residents and for the advancement of their municipalities. I do thank the minister and her staff for providing that information and we will go through that as well.

I have spoken in the House several times with respect to several areas of concern that I'm hoping that the minister and her department will address. Of course, the updating of the Municipalities Act, that new legislation is required, no doubt about it. Municipalities are operating under old legislation. I have heard from many municipalities across the province in my former life as mayor and my current life as MHA with respect to the need for updating that, and I do appreciate the minister taking that under her advisement and coming up with new legislation, hopefully, by this fall.

The second was the mandatory municipal training for councillors. As we are all aware, when we come into this hon. House we do have mandatory training for Members of the House of Assembly – which I agree with. I am advocating for the municipal training for councillors to be mandatory as well. I am sure the minister and her department officials – even under the pandemic that we're in now, hopefully by this fall, some of it will be released or slackened up. But even with the pandemic, we can make sure that all municipal councillors are trained in municipal training and have the proper legislation there as well.

Mr. Speaker, as we went through not just municipal and provincial affairs, but all of the Estimates, COVID kept coming up again and again with respect to the different numbers from the budgeted and the actuals. The departments had to shift on the fly many times to mitigate with issues.

Again, I will speak to municipalities. They did have a plan in place. Of course, there were extra expenditures at times, there was less at other times with travel and meetings and what have you; but I would like to see the minister continue forward with looking at savings in her department with respect to continuing on with the plans that they have, how they dealt with COVID, what was put in place. It was encouraging to see that the minister was willing to work towards change. There are many towns in our province who are looking at regionalization and many towns have already put that forward on their own. So I did speak with the minister with respect to that, the importance of regionalization, as many towns are struggling.

I spoke about those grants and approvals earlier. They are key, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but we have many towns in our province who are struggling. They have increased costs with respect to the rising cost of lumber and building materials. Some of their projects are not getting approved. Or if they are approved, they can't move forward with them because they can't afford to do so. That's always a concern, Mr. Speaker, when we look at municipalities and what they need to do to improve the lives of their residents.

Of course, when we're looking at our municipalities, we can't afford to have a population decline, as was spoken to by my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, we have a smaller tax base and we have to rely more upon the grants and subsidies that are there from the province and her department. It's something that we all have to keep in mind and be very mindful moving forward for all municipalities throughout our province.

I'd like to touch on the municipal elections coming up this fall. Of course, I've spoken about it before in this House, but I'd like to speak to it again with respect to the importance of municipal government and municipal leaders and the work that they do on the ground level.

I do know that municipalities are looking forward to change with respect to the way the election is going to be done this fall. The minister and her department are working towards that. I hope that it can be facilitated in time with respect to a mail-in ballot, if that's the way that it's going to be approved. I do know that there's going to be a fair bit of work that has to be done on it. I will, of course, ask the pertinent questions to the minister and her department going forward to make sure that it is certainly the case and that it would be there for the benefit of all people so that all residents of all municipalities have the opportunity to vote and to cast their ballots. We don't want to see their struggle in order to do so.

I'd like to thank the minister for that, with respect to the Estimates, and all ministers that were involved, that I took part in.

Mr. Speaker, today I had the opportunity to visit Holy Trinity High School in Torbay. I had the invite to attend their pride flag-raising ceremony. I had the opportunity to be there with the Grade 9 students and the administration and staff. It was a quiet, short, but powerful flag-raising ceremony. We all know what's going in the news this past week with respect to the taking down of the pride flags. In one instance – I believe it was in Mount Pearl – the flag was destroyed. Being there today and seeing those Grade 9 students and listening to them, no doubt it's an impressionable age and we need to encourage everyone that we are all equal, no doubt about it. I want to thank them again for their invitation.

It was great to see Constable Krista Fagan from the RNC there as well, with support dog Stella. Stella was there to meet and greet all the Grade 9 students and staff. So I'd just like to send a shout-out to the Holy Trinity High School administration and staff for that pride flag raising today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you.

Just to touch on Route 20, the roadwork that's being done in my district, Mr. Speaker. As I said last week, it is ongoing. I viewed the sites today that are being worked on in the Town of Flatrock and the Town of Torbay. Work is coming along great I have to say. It's pleasing to see that work is being done. I just wish that my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port with Cold Brook would have the work done as well. So I'll just get a plug in for my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port with respect to that work.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that no doubt there's much more work to be done. I do realize the parameters we're under, but we do what – we do have to keep in mind with respect to that the work that's there. My colleague for Ferryland has a petition; I believe he had a petition today with respect to the roads in his district. We have to keep that in mind, the work that needs to be done and the important work.

Also, just to touch on my colleague for Ferryland, he spoke earlier this week about emergency response times, ambulances and what have you in his district. Mr. Speaker, being a district on the Northeast Avalon one would think that we have no issue with response times, but that's certainly not the case. In my former life as mayor, I've witness 25 to 30 minutes of a response time from Eastern Health to my Town of Pouch Cove. It was because of that, that we as a municipality stepped up – with, of course, the lead from the volunteer fire department – in order to respond to Code 4 medical calls.

That being done in our town has certainly made a difference, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the service that we provide to the residents. I do know that the response times are much shorter now with respect to our department responding. It's certainly great to know that we have those responders there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The volume level here is at six and I need it brought back down to four.

Thank you.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

With respect to the emergency response time, I do want to commend the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department and the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department for their efforts in reducing response times for those who are requiring Code 4 medical calls. So it's not just an outside-the-Avalon issue, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that Eastern Health at times is strapped with respect to the calls they receive, with respect to the backup that they have from St. John's regional. This is why these two municipalities put in place the level of commitment that's required in order for fire departments to do Code 4 medical calls. It's made such a huge difference in my district. Again, with a budget of $561,000 from the Town of Torbay and $200,000 from the Town of Pouch Cove, they are able to do that with the commitment from their members. I'd just like to give a shout-out to all those who are involved and to say in this hon. House that's not just a rural issue. Response time is, of course, crucial and it's being felt, I'm sure, throughout all districts in our beautiful province.

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board recognized Public Service Week. I'd like to do that as well. Of course, being a former public servant, I recognize the importance of celebrating that week and putting that back onto the servants who deserve our respect. We have a lot of hard-working members in our public service. They just worked for the last 18 months through a pandemic. Their efforts and dedication to their positions have to be applauded no doubt.

It's difficult when you cannot stay home – and I did speak about that earlier in the House – when you have to go to work, when you cannot work from home and you have to report and to serve. I'd just like to thank those hard-working public servants for the work that they do. I do hope that this government will keep in mind, if there are changes coming to the public sector with respect to workers or the numbers of workers – that we keep that in mind as we go forward for what the province needs to operate in a safe manner going forward and we keep that in mind as we do celebrate Public Service Week. We do know that the public service proudly serve their province in all areas of what they do.

Mr. Speaker, I know we spoke many times this week here in the House on the Terra Nova Project. I'd just like to recognize the many residents that have reached out to me in my District of Cape St. Francis about the importance of this project. I do like the term: We'll leave no stone unturned. I do hope that the government are truly following through with that. To those who have reached out to me and to my colleagues here in the Opposition, we will continue to ask the important questions. No doubt, that is our job, to ask questions. We will continue to do that.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone here in this hon. House has heard the personal stories with respect to oil and gas workers. During the campaign, I was campaigning in Torbay and I spoke to a young couple who both are in the oil and gas sector. Of course, good jobs, good paying jobs, you live according to your means and they were living quite comfortably for the last number of years. Having been out of work for the past 18 months has certainly made a difference to the money that they have put away to their nest egg. That has been depleted and now the process has begun of selling what they can sell around them in order to stay here in our province.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, they're down to their house and their vehicle. One vehicle has been sold to try to have the money to stay here in our beautiful province. The last thing that's going to be sold now is the house; they're keeping the vehicle so they can drive to the Mainland, to Fort McMurray. That's a sad story and I know it tugs at the heartstrings. It mightn't be numbers, or facts or dollars and cents, but I do know that when I'm standing on their step and they have tears in their eyes – they want to stay here but they can't because they don't have work because this vessel is not producing right now – that speaks volumes.

I can tell you I've witnessed it too many times. This is only one instance. I've witnessed it too many times during the election and I've heard from many people since the election about the oil and gas. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said yesterday that revenues from the oil and gas sector to this province is crucial. That's true. There's no more truer statement than that. It is crucial when you're looking at our budget and what we have to face.

The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology said they're negotiating in the best interests of the residents of the province. I firmly believe that the minister is doing that – I do. We, on this side of the House, can ask the questions and try to get answers, but I do believe that there's no one in this hon. House that's not operating or doing the best that they can for this. I know that, but it's very little consolation when it comes down to having the conversations on the doorstep or, as some people in this hon. House say, on the bridge with respect to the people who are involved, who are impacted by this oil and gas sector and the lack of work right now with respect to the Terra Nova FPSO.

The Premier has said that the table has been set. Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it has, because it's going to have to be quite the spread to bring forward another partner or another business here in this province if the Terra Nova Project is not signed and a deal done.

So how long will we have to wait for the province for the next one to come across? I don't know, but I do hope that the table is going to continue to be set moving forward because, if not, we're going to be in a dire strait when it comes to the income from the oil and gas and what that's going to make on the bottom line for our budget here in our province.

I do want to say to all those who have reached out to me: Thank you for reaching out to me. I thank all the workers in the oil and gas sector throughout our province and their families, because it is just as taxing on the family members as it is the workers themselves. All of them have contributed to the prosperity to our beautiful province, Mr. Speaker. That cannot be lost as we go forward.

I'm hopeful that the deal will be signed. It is going to make or break a lot of lives in our province. I do want to just take a moment to speak about that and their importance and to thank all of those workers in the oil and gas sector who contribute to the prosperity of our province, and have over the years, and I hope it will continue going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your patience and your protection at times. I look forward to speaking again in this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is a very, very important day for the people of the province. It is also a very important day for the people of the District of Harbour Main.

I can first of all say that, as I have stated before in the House, there is much concern and worry by my constituents and the tradespeople who work in the oil and gas industry and those specifically impacted by the Terra Nova potential abandonment. That is what we are waiting to hear today, Mr. Speaker, the fate of that project will, in all likelihood, be determined by the end of the day, unless there is an extension.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the District of Harbour Main and others in other districts in the province that have workers working on this project are feeling the uncertainty, they are feeling the financial stress, and, Mr. Speaker, this stress is very real.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to try to understand what's been happening here with respect to the Terra Nova Project – it is a complex matter. We do recognize that the government doesn't have an easy task here. We're all, I think, reasonable people and will acknowledge that.

In an effort for me to understand this topic, I've spoken to many of my constituents who are tradespeople who work in the industry, who have worked on the FPSO. They've helped me understand more about what this is. I'm not an engineer. I'm not an oil worker. I don't have that background, so it's been a learning curve to say the least. I've spoken to engineers to try to understand. I've read many things about the oil industry and, as well, in general about the green economy in an effort to be able to relate and to understand better for my constituents about what's happening here and to, hopefully, be able to communicate to them what I'm learning in the House of Assembly and from government.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I've tried to break it down for me and for my constituents to understand it. I've broken it down, really, into two categories: what we know and what we don't know.

What do we know? We do know that oil will be with us for decades to come, and most people believe that, eventually, oil will be phased out. That is what we know. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that green energy is important and that there is a future for green energy. No one is disputing that either. For now, my research and what I've learned and listened here in the House and from other sources, oil and the fossil fuel-based energy is needed and the demand is there.

Mr. Speaker, what does the real evidence say? This is just in general terms from what I've learned. I stand to be corrected. I have learned that the evidence says that there are about three types of energy. The energies typically promoted in renewable mandates are solar, wind and biofuels. The evidence is equivocal that solar, wind and biomass energy can meaningfully supplement fossil fuel energy, let alone replace it. There is conflicting evidence on that, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe in the future these industries can overcome the obstacles which exist with respect to the solar, wind and biomass energy; the obstacles that currently exist that do not make it cheap, plentiful or reliable. But if in the future that can happen then that's fantastic. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

Mr. Speaker, our offshore oil industry provides opportunity for us here in this province and it makes good, smart sense to pursue responsible development of this resource. We must develop it, I would argue. Not only do I argue that, but the PERT also argues that with Moya Greene at the helm. Her view on this, and the PERT had said, that the window for investment in the offshore has narrowed to as little as 10 years, and if development in the province does not happen within these timelines, considerable wealth will be stranded hindering the province's ability to improve its fiscal situation and limiting its ability to fund a transition to a green economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, we know that from what Dame Moya Greene has stated and the report. So it does make good sense to pursue responsible development of this resource.

Why does it make sense? Because we have to pay off a massive debt – a massive debt. We have to support our important services. This industry, Mr. Speaker, and specifically the Terra Nova, is so important to us that it continues to put more money in our Treasury. We saw from the budget that $1.4 billion of increased oil and gas royalties from the Terra Nova. We also know that there are 80 million additional barrels of oil out there to 2031. Imagine, 80 million recoverable barrels.

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the government that, well, it's 85 per cent and there's only 15 per cent. But I would suggest that we're looking at the wrong equation here. What about that 15 per cent? That 80 million recoverable barrels, what does that mean in terms of profit?

What we also know, specifically, about the Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker, is there are profitable reserves. There are profitable oil reserves in that sea floor. The hydrocarbons are there. They are there; we know that to be true. That is factual.

Terra Nova, we also know, has been profitable for us. As the Premier stated even this morning, yes, it's been profitable for the oil companies. I find it somewhat curious when I hear the tone of the Premier when he says: The multimillion-dollar profitable oil companies. Bad oil, in other words. Well, Mr. Speaker, those profitable oil companies have also provided much opportunity for the province and have provided much prosperity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we cannot forget that. I think that has to be acknowledged and recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we know 80 million additional barrels of oil are out there in the sea floor. We know we don't have to drill new wells to get that oil. The hard part has already been done. All of the infrastructure is there. Some engineers I've talked to have said that the subsea plumbing is in place; it's just waiting for us to extract it. If we walk away from that Terra Nova Project we're leaving untapped resources there, we're abandoning this opportunity and we know that there's at least 15 per cent of that remaining.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, through Noia's analysis, I might add, that the project has the potential to support over 1,700 jobs and $138 million in wages and almost 3,400 jobs and $139 million in wages annually during 10 years, over a 10-year period. We also know from the analysis that $11 billion in royalties, provincial and municipal governments would receive a total of $1.49 billion over 10 years. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and we need to know these facts. The people have a right to know these facts and understand that.

Mr. Speaker, we hear, for example, when we were given the technical briefing – and I'm going to talk about that in a minute in more detail, but that technical briefing that was provided there was a reference to a marginal recovery. But when, for example, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port asked: What is that marginal recovery? We don't know. We need to know. We have a right to know. How can they not know? How can you make a decision and base such an important decision without having that data, without having that information? I don't understand that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to point out as well is with respect to the federal government. Now, we know that the federal government, under the prime minister's leadership, is committed to a green energy agenda. It's interesting to note, just this week after the G7 Summit concluded, Canada, our federal government, said it would double its climate finance pledge to $5.3 billion over the next five years. The taxpayers of Canada are doubling their commitment to $5.3 billion over the next five years.

Our federal government, as well our Natural Resources minister who is also a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I would submit, we know that he has not been a strong advocate, in my opinion, for the people of the province as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in trying to understand this important topic and this important issue to the people, I also inquired or looked into what our former Premier Peckford had to say about this – our former Premier Peckford who fought for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Basically in his understanding and comments about this, he has stated that that's why I fought for oil and gas development in the first place, because there was and is simply no other source that can supply the level of revenues as oil and gas does.

He went on further to say that there's no compelling evidence in the report – well, no evidence at all; and he's referring to the PERT report – that the so-called new economy proposed – meaning the green economy – can replace this level of revenues. I think that's important for us to also recognize that right now where we stand in terms of the green economy, we have to be smart about our support and development of this important resource, especially for Newfoundland and Labrador which is an oil-based economy.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I want to make with respect to what we know, which is so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is in regard to jobs. The Terra Nova Project is really about jobs. We know that jobs are created through investment. Jobs our people need to stay here and to move here. Jobs our communities need to survive: the Terra Nova means that. Right now, as we deal with such a huge population decline, there is no greater priority, in my view, than jobs.

In the past year, we have seen layoffs. We've seen Husky and Suncor, Terra Nova, Come By Chance refinery. And that can't sustain our province if we continue to lose jobs. If we continue to see these job loses, we will not be able to sustain our province. Without jobs and the income that comes from that, every other challenge that we face in our province will only escalate.

Without jobs, there is no revenue for health care. There is no revenue for education. There is no revenue for poverty reduction. There is no revenue for infrastructure. There is no revenue for a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, Terra Nova is a great opportunity for generating jobs. And not only those jobs that Noia's analysis has given us, that we have to at least look at and see what those numbers are, but the spinoff. The spinoff benefits to communities is real, Mr. Speaker.

This is so important. Government has to ensure that Terra Nova gets back in service as soon as possible, producing oil and sustaining jobs for our province. We have a golden opportunity in our province. We have the skilled labour; there is no question about that. Our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are skilled. They are recognized globally for their skill and their experience and their talents and abilities. We have the skilled labour to harness this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of tradespeople who are capable of working in the Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I think it's important to acknowledge that we do know. We do know, for example, a joint media statement came out just on the 7th of June from 12 mayors in municipalities on the Northeast Avalon saying, recognizing and calling on the partners – not only the partners in the industry but government – to invest in our people, our industry and our communities by coming to some sort of resolution. They stated that they recognize the industry has been integral to our social and economic well-being. There's no disputing that. We know that is true.

It has afforded us opportunities to cultivate a research and development sector. That is what it provided to us. To help us diversify into new areas of business and technology, the oil industry helped us do that. The big bad oil helped us do that, so we have to be fair in our assessment of this. They presented opportunities for us to grow our talents and expertise and support our communities.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few remaining minutes I'll ask some of these questions. I've gone through what we know. What don't we know? What we don't know is that according to the government and the minister – and the Premier said, I think, yesterday that it's too great a risk. Well, what exactly is that risk? I'm not one to have blind trust, nor are the people that I represent. If it is too great a risk, you show us why that is. We don't know. Simply saying the proposed terms were not acceptable given the risks – too great a risk; that we're not looking at profit we're looking at risk – that's not sufficient. That's not adequate, without explaining what the risks are. Identify them. Exactly what are those risks?

Like I've referred earlier, the technical briefing said it showed only marginal returns on an equity investment, as well as the royalties. Well, what are those marginal returns? We have a right to know. What is the amount that you're talking about? Why won't government give us the exact figure of the returns? What is the profit we would be losing? We need to have that information to understand the basis for their decision and how they came to the conclusion that they did.

The technical briefing was given to us from 8:30 to 9:15. Because of that, I had to be in the House and could not be out on the steps where my constituents, many of whom were tradespeople, were out on a rally. I could not attend like other Members in the House on the Opposition side. At any rate, we wanted to find out the information. The technical briefing was vague. There was a non-disclosure statement that was referred to; we can't tell you anything because of the non-disclosure. That's an explanation for keeping us in the dark. Mr. Speaker, they very well know that they could have sought and attempted to waive – see if they could waive that non-disclosure agreement so as to give us the information.

Government says there's too great a risk; in order to come to that conclusion we need to know how much can we recover. Mr. Speaker, we don't know the facts. We need to know them. This is an important decision. It's very unfortunate that there's such a lack of transparency. That is the problem here; the public has to have all of the records.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Your time has expired.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always an honour to speak in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Labrador West, a mining community. I've seen the downturn; I've seen the effects of losing an industry. My mom and my dad both worked in the mines and I would argue that my mom, while not the first, was one of the first women to go to work in an industrial situation in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: In the '80s, when Wabush Mines closed down the first time, suicide was rampant. People left. They didn't know where to go or what to turn to. There was a program that came out from the federal and provincial government; I think it was called (inaudible). Some people tried to avail of that, some people were too old to avail of it and some people lacked the initial education in order to take advantage of retraining and schooling.

My point is that regardless of where you work, not everybody is on the same foot, not everybody has the same ability to push past a career that they've spent 20 or 30 years at. I really believe that it's okay for us to sit here and say we're going to transition to a green economy, we're going to take money and we're going to take oil workers and put them in a situation where they can go back to work into a green economy. But I'll say I heard the minister today say that we don't even know what a plan for a green economy looks like. That plan hasn't been released. These people are hungry now, these people are struggling to put food on their tables now, to pay bills and it's tough.

Mr. Speaker, after spending many years away from Newfoundland and really making every day my goal to get back here – because I love this province. It's why I ran because I love this province. I ran because I didn't see a future for my children in this province. I ran because I see industries slipping away, jobs slipping away and complete sectors – the fishery, agriculture – different things that we just haven't been able to do right. I'm not saying that I have the silver bullet to fix any of that, but I want to be a part of fixing it.

I'm sure that all 40 people in this House feel the same way. They all want to be a part of it. That's why we're here. We're here because we love the province; we love our families. Each and every one of us, I believe, stepped up because we think we have something to offer. If we don't have something to offer, then we shouldn't be here, but we need to listen to each other also.

Somebody asked me the other day why I'm so passionate about the Terra Nova. I'm not just passionate about the Terra Nova; I'm passionate about the people of this province. I'm passionate about oil and gas in general, but certainly all of our natural resources.

To put it in perspective, I live in Clarenville. A few kilometres down the road is our national park, Terra Nova. The subdivision I live in is made up of Hibernia Drive, White Rose, Hebron Place, Jean D'Arc and the street I live on, Terra Nova. I happen to be the MHA for Terra Nova. If somebody wants to question why I'm so passionate about the Terra Nova, it's everywhere I turn. Everywhere I turn, I see Terra Nova. I understand what it means to people today. It's not that I think that oil and gas is our future. I believe that oil and gas is the path to our future. Oil and gas is our present. Without oil and gas, we may not have a future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: We sit here, we banter and we ask questions. People get offended by questions and people get offended by responses. I just think we really need to sit back and understand what this is all about.

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again: I'm really shocked that I haven't heard one person from the other side talk about the Terra Nova and how it affects their constituents and how they want to understand this. It's not understanding why we're making a decision not to go forward; it's that we don't have all of the facts.

Today we asked a question about abandonment, a number that was never thrown around, but now we come to find out that walking away from this is going to cost us $150 million or $200 million in royalty carry backs. This is the information that we have been asking for, but hasn't been offered up. We shouldn't have to ATIPP this stuff. We shouldn't have a Minister of the Crown sitting over there saying that they've received emails from constituents saying that this is a good idea. Then, if we ask to see those emails, they say: Well, you can ATIPP them. You know what? Just table them. We're all here for the same reason. I really just don't understand.

Terra Nova represents 1,100 direct jobs. I listened to the Member for Harbour Main who spoke very eloquently. To her credit, she put a lot of facts on the table. Those are the types of things we need to hear. It's about the facts, but it's also about the realities. The facts and the realities come together to give us the situation we're in here today. Those numbers are not clear.

This government has convinced the population of this province that there's $500 million coming from this government's pocket. I heard a minister yesterday say if we don't use that money we can use it for other things. We can use it for training or education or health care. All along that question has been asked. As a matter of fact, that question has been asked in this House for maybe eight months now and the answer is always been a firm no. Not a maybe, not a let's see; it's an absolutely not. When we asked if any of that money could be used to help with the refinery the answer was absolutely not. But now all of a sudden we can use it for health care. I don't know, I don't know. It's not clear.

Then there's the $300 million in royalties. Well, let's be clear. That money is not coming from the provincial coffers. But let's be clear about something else, if the Terra Nova fails, that money is also not going into the provincial coffers nor is a whole lot of other money that nobody is considering. I find it hard to believe that government can sit here and tell us that they've done an analysis, but nobody can tell us the downside of this decision. Nobody can tell us what it's going to cost us not to put the Terra Nova back into production.

If we're making a decision based on not having all these facts, I don't get it. Now, if the harsh reality is that we don't have the money to buy into this and make it work, if that is the harsh reality, then somebody over there ought to have the courage to stand up and say that. It hasn't been said. It hasn't been talked about. It hasn't been suggested.

The reality that we're in here today is that we have 1,100 men and women who don't have a job. We have 1,700 men and women who could be employed almost immediately at about $138 million over a two-year period for refurbishment. After that period, when it goes back into production, we have another 1,100 people that go back to work full-time and then we have, by this government's own numbers, four times that amount working in our public sector – not public sector but working in our private sector supporting oil and gas.

Right now, by the numbers I've got, there are 102 companies that have direct contracts with the Terra Nova. Some of those companies, 75 per cent of their business is directly related to the Terra Nova, 75 per cent of their business is directly related to the fate of this rig and we're not considering those people. When we talk about 1,100 people losing their jobs, buckle up, because it's going to get a lot worse. There are a lot more than 1,100 people.

We need to look at that. We need to consider that. For this not to be talked about in this House, it bewilders me. It's the reality of a decision that's being made here today. We need to know all of the facts. How can we not be looking at the indirects? How can the minister stand over there yesterday and say, well, we have $35 million put in the budget, but, obviously, that's just not there if this doesn't go back.

So it's $35 million this year. What about the next 10 years? What is the cost over the next 10 years? What is the cost of failure? I don't understand it.

This rig has been idle since 2019, along with a lot of other ones. Yesterday, I listened to the minister – and, listen, I'm not saying that the minister is saying things wrong. The reality of it is there are a billion barrels in Bay du Nord. That's great. Do you know what? There are probably two or three billion barrels outside of Bay du Nord, all over. Awesome. We have liquid nitrogen gas offshore that's the envy of the world. There's no question of that. The science shows it.

This government would argue that the federal government has shortened the time for environmental approvals – yet to be seen. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. Six hundred and fifty finds possibly as big as Hebron or bigger. It all sounds good, but in reality none of that is any good to us if we're not utilizing it.

What good is a billion barrels of oil in the bottom of the ocean if we have no activity going on? We have Bull Arm out there, a glorified parking lot for dead rigs. The Henry Goodrich: cold stacked. Not a good word, bad word. We've had this conversation a few times. West Aquarius: cold stacked. Again, bad word, not coming back. The Barents: gone, left, gone overseas.

The first time, I believe, since 1979 – and I could be corrected on that number – that there hasn't been a drill rig off the coast of this province, up until a few weeks ago when the Stena Forth came here. We went almost a year without a drill rig. We actually jeopardized our entire offshore industry. We didn't have any way to do a work over or fix any of the tie-backs or if there was a major blowout. We didn't have the capacity to look after our own ocean. Yet, not a word, not from not only government but from the C-NLOPB, which shocked me.

We don't have a plan. We can talk all the time about a plan. We haven't heard anything about projected offshore land sales. As a matter of fact, the C-NLOPB decided this year that they wouldn't go out for land sales in the Bay du Nord. Don't know why, but they didn't.

It's not good to have all of this data if we're not going to use it. We sit here in a place that should be thriving. We're a province that has it all, yet we don't use any of it. We should be thriving. We should be pushing forward. We should have a plan that advances us. And, no, COVID should not have restricted us. We should've made a plan while COVID was going on, like the rest of the world. We should have been looking for a way forward. To coin the phrase: The Way Forward.

Instead, Third-World countries like Guyana have surpassed us. They're going way, way, way further ahead than we are. As they're putting rigs out to the ocean, we're going backwards.

We have the cleanest fuels in the world and we don't get support from our federal counterparts, yet they think it's okay to bring Saudi fuel in here to be refined, to be used. They've forgotten about us. They look at this Island as if it was floating wharf. I think they wish they could cut the lines and set us free so they didn't have anything to do with us. We sit here and don't say a word, not a word.

It's okay for us to sit here and complain about each other and what we do in here as a House, but there's one thing that's common in this House that I don't hear anyone say, that is that our federal counterparts do not stand up for the people that represent this province. They do not say a word and we don't hold them accountable. We don't say a word. It's shameful.

We have a federal minister who has said nothing about this file, not a word. Three hundred and twenty million dollars for an industry, yet they inject $200 million into a casino. Do you know what? Oh, they keep saying that; of course we keep saying that. Think about it. A casino that probably employs a couple hundred people. We're talking about an industry, in the minister's own words, that employs 6,700 people directly. That doesn't include the indirects; 6,700 people offshore, $320 million; 200 people in a casino, $200 million. Do the math. It's pretty simple math. It's not real hard to do.

The only thing worse than being blind is to have sight with no vision, and we've lost vision in this House. Our federal counterparts have certainly lost vision. We ought to be standing up for the people that put us here. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, we've lost our way and we don't want to do that. We can sit here and talk it over and over again, I've said it. I've heard lots of people in this House say the same thing. At the end of the day, we have to find a way to do it.

There's an old adage about having tools in your tool chest to do the work that you have to do. We have the tools, folks. We have a lot of tools here. We have the manpower, we have the willpower and we have the knowledge. It's not good to give someone a shovel and watch them dig a hole with their hands. That's exactly what we're doing here. We continue to do it all the time.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is very similar to the information that we got yesterday. I say that because it lacks information. We got a briefing yesterday morning where it wasn't what was said; it's what wasn't said. When you ask questions about how you got to this decision, again, no answers. We don't know what it's going to cost; we don't know what the impact is; we don't know what the next 10 years look like; we don't know how this affects the rest of the oil industry; we want to believe that it won't have any detrimental effects – all speculation.

The budget is very similar, you know; the meat is not there. The people I represent in my district are tradespeople, they are people who work offshore, they are people who work in a refinery that has been shut down for a long time, and hopefully now there's a glimmer of hope. We're hearing some maybe positive news, but we'll have to wait and see.

But it's no different than all of Newfoundland and Labrador. We're spinning our wheels here for no good reason. We, as a province, have allowed COVID to take a hold of us and decide our destiny. We have not looked at a way to develop our natural resources going forward and we have not looked at a way to take advantage of a downturn in the economy, which we could have turned into an upturn. We allow companies – we're paying more for gas now than we ever have for no good reason and then we just added a tax to it. It's time for us to start looking at what we have here and to utilize our own people and our resources.

For some reason, like I said, it's always the same way. We talk about our workers and we talk about how great it is we're building a mental health facility, yet we don't understand what we're doing to people's mental health by not helping them pick themselves up. Mental health in my district is a big deal and I'm sure it is in everybody's district here. There's not a day that goes by when we don't receive a call or we don't have someone who's on the edge either because of finances or employment or both and they can't get help. They can't get help financially and they can't get help mentally. They can't find a way forward and we don't give them the opportunity to pick themselves up. That opportunity comes from making people feel good about themselves and giving people the opportunity to succeed on their own steam, and all we do is throw water on the fire every time we get close to doing something right.

Today will be a dark day in Newfoundland if this Terra Nova rig fails. Again, I said yesterday and I'll say it again today, I'm not suggesting that we go all in on equity. We don't have the information to make a decision on that and that is not our fault. Maybe we didn't need to know the cost of equity, but we ought of have known the cost of the next 10 years without the Terra Nova offshore producing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: We ought to have known what it costs for us as a province to have 1,100 men and women immediately unemployed and to have possibly as many as 4,500 unemployed. We sit and we talk about migration and population growth, and I can tell you, I've heard it from the unions and I've heard it from the people in my district that work in this industry, they're not sticking around – they're not sticking around. Somebody said, oh, they're gonna to leave because the taxes are higher. No, they're not going to leave because the taxes are higher; they're going to leave because they don't have any money. They got no income. They got nothing.

Go to the grocery store and try and buy a steak or a piece of chicken. Go have a look at the price of food now. It's gone through the roof. It's probably gone through the roof partially because of supply and demand, because people can't afford to buy it so it gets more expensive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, somebody is whistling; can we ask them to stop?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who have men and women in their district throughout this entire province. I would argue that there's probably not one individual in this House that doesn't have somebody who works in the oil and gas sector, either here or in Alberta, or overseas or in South America. They've all seen the effects of the global pandemic on oil and gas. We've all seen that.

Last March when we got shut down, there was an opportunity for us to chart a path forward. Part of that path was to look at ways to save the Terra Nova, to save the West White Rose and possibly get a long-term plan for Bull Arm. A lot of things that would have given us a future, and none of these things happened. Right now, we've got the West White Rose out in Argentia sitting idle. It's sat idle forever. Actually, we pumped a bunch of money into it and the end result was layoffs.

It's easy to say government can pump in $500 million, we're not putting in anymore and we're going to walk away because of our financial stance. But it's not entirely honest when that is said. Again, the $205 million is a flow through. That's cash that's coming from Ottawa. Nobody can answer us whether or not that cash stays here. We've asked the question; nobody can answer that.

Now, I had somebody yesterday chirp out and say there are other requests out there. I'm still being told that there's not. Again, the $300 million in royalties, not only do they equate to zero if we don't move forward, but we have a bill for $200 million. We have 1,100 people out of jobs, a bill for $200 million, no future royalties and no possible future.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we need all the facts before we make a decision. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, it's always an honour to speak in this House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as we wind down debate on the 2021-22 budget, it's an honour to speak again about the impact this and a number of other programs that it directly funds will have on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is my third time to speak directly on the budget itself. The last time I started by saying it has been a confusing and saddening day when we first learned of the potential fate of the Terra Nova Project. Today, it is still a saddening day, but it is still even more worrisome now that we are close to a point where the lives of so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the oil industry and Newfoundland and Labrador itself could be dramatically altered by what could possibly happen over the next period of time.

I said it the last time and I'll say it again: I am a continuous optimist. I always believe there is a solution to every challenge, there is a way to make things better in our society, in our lives and there is a way collectively to find a path forward. I am still hopeful. I don't know if the lead has to come from levels of government. I don't know if it is the lead that has to come from the oil industry. I don't know if it needs to come from the union leaders, or from the rank and file themselves. Collectively, this industry is too important to us, it is too important on a global perspective and it is too important for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for us not to do everything. And I mean everything possible, within the realm of what's in the best interest of all that's involved, to try to find the solution to this challenge.

I know we have talked about it continuously in this House. We have asked over 45 questions directly. I suspect we debated it and discussed it – my colleagues on this side maybe for another five, six, seven hours in discussion that Terra Nova and the oil industry itself were the primary discussion topic in having a roundabout on where we are, because we are passionate about it.

I don't think in any way, shape or form that the Members on that side are not just as passionate as we are, because I think everybody understands it. My colleague just now, from Terra Nova, noted the point that everybody in this House, everybody in this province is directly or indirectly connected to somebody who works in the oil industry or benefits from that.

If you are so far removed and you've never even understood what the oil industry is about, you're still affected in a positive way because of the money that have been generated, the use of technology. What this has brought to our province, not just in the direct benefits to the oil industry or the production and all that, but all the other spinoff things; the skill sets that have been learned in that industry that have been able to be transformed into other careers; enabled to be able to make that bridging to help things in manufacturing; and even in health care and education, all kinds of things. If you go to the college system here and our university, do you think part of what they've developed here didn't come and be driven by technology advances in the oil industry and the skill set there? Without a doubt. Not counting the hundreds – and I do want to emphasize hundreds – of millions of dollars that have directly been put in there because of the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For anybody out there – and I know there are some skeptics about: Oh, we shouldn't be funding the oil industry. We shouldn't be in bed with the oil industry. We shouldn't partner with the oil industry. I want you to realize and look around. Everybody in this province benefits from the oil industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Now, I'm not saying that we have to bend down to any level of any industry, the oil industry included, but we do need to set the environment that includes industry, particularly the oil and gas industry, that want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. Set the environment where they know we're open for business; set the environment where they know we're willing to give a fair deal as long as at the end of the day we get a fair shake also. That's not too much to ask for of any governments, it's not too much to ask for of any society and it's not too much to give up from any company or corporation out there.

We've seen it, and my colleague from Harbour Main said the same thing. This is not big bad oil, by no stretch of the imagination. I have dozens of friends who are at every level in the oil industry, up to senior executive levels. They don't do anything different than we do, they don't think differently than we do and their moral beliefs are not different than ours are, Mr. Speaker. They believe in the same things we do. They just have a role and responsibility to do, no different than we have in this House and no different than anybody who came in their former careers before they got into this House or those who may leave and go into another career. They do what they think is in the best interests of their employers and what they're trying to do, while at the same time ensuring that everybody they work with benefits from what they're proposing. So I want to dispel that out there.

I know it's very easy, particularly in our province, to rile people on one side of the fence or the other, but this shouldn't be about that. It's not about us and them. I think that too often that has become the conversation than it should be around how do we find a way to do things. I want to clarify that on this side of the House we're not anti anything, what we are is let's find the best way to use all the resources we have, all of the people we have and all of the benefactors we have to ensure we all benefit from that as part of that process.

To those people who are listening and watching out there, the oil industry is not about giveaways from the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I would suspect, the chair or the CEO of one of these corporations is saying to their shareholders: You know what, this is not about giveaways to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or any other jurisdiction, it's about a balance. It's about a balance that ensures we all achieve our objectives. I would suspect in the corporate world – and I know because I worked there for a period of time – it's about ensuring that they are profitable; that the expenditures that they have are met; if they're in to a shareholder process, their shareholders are happy by the way that the corporation is moving forward; that they change their branding; and that they change the products and services that they're providing.

No different than we in government do the same thing. We want to look at that we are going to be profitable in what we do. If it's profitable in social programs, if it's profitable in our revenue generating, if it's profitable in how we develop our infrastructure processes, we want to do that. The population of Newfoundland and Labrador, the same way. At the end of the day, they want to know whatever they're gaining in our society, be it whoever provides that – if it's the corporate world, if it's the social world, if it's the government world – they benefit from that. There are certain expectations and obligations from them also, and realistic expectations about what is the limit that can be expected, that we all gain from what we are doing from part of that process.

I wanted to dispel that because I've gotten, like everybody here – we've all gotten dozens, maybe hundreds of emails since this whole debate started around Terra Nova. I've tried to explain, as I know my colleagues on this side of it, this is not about taking a side, one way or the other. This is about finding the path forward that ensures those who are most affected by what may happen in this particular project, and in future projects, are looked at to find solutions to address their immediate fears. Their immediate fear is being unemployed. Their immediate fear is how do I pay my mortgage. Their immediate fear is my kids are in programs and services; what do I say to my kids now about doing those? My immediate fear is – and I suspect the biggest one – I don't want to leave my hometown; I don't want to leave our province. This is where I came to stay; I don't want to leave this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: We're trying to keep as optimistic as possible. We've put out overtures – and the Premier knows that, the minister knows that and the government knows it – that we are willing. I particularly know that the Official Opposition are willing to try to find a solution and work with it. We won't banter for the sake of bantering. We will challenge, don't get me wrong, and we will ask for clarification. We may even stretch the line sometimes on knowing where it is the information can be shared and when, but there is an ability here to do the right thing.

The right thing may have to be, at the end of the day, we just could not get to where people wanted to go. That necessarily isn't the wrong thing. It's never the wrong thing if it's done for the right reason and everything possible has been examined. I just wanted to start that by saying that at the end of day I'm still optimistically hopeful. I don't know who's driving the bus right now to make that go in the right direction to get us to that school, but I'm hoping whoever the bus driver is and whoever is sitting in those seats have the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they make the decisions. The best interest here would be that the Terra Nova Project continues forward.

I think all involved – I think the oil companies themselves will not lose from being involved in this. They may have all kinds of logistical reasons why some would prefer to pull out. I understand that. That's business. But at the end of the day, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and this province have been good to the oil industry, as the oil industry has been good to Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to be able to find a way to get everyone – everyone – to be cognizant of the roles and responsibilities they have to ensure that people are financially equipped and that our oil industry doesn't take a black eye because we weren't able to continue one of the projects that have deemed very viable.

The data says that there are still reserves there. The seismic dictates that as they start moving towards the additional resources that are there, they're going to find additional, as we have in every other one of our wells that we've started. Particularly, let's go back to our original one with Hibernia and where we are now.

I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of being on the platform with the minister of natural resources – sorry, I apologize for the new change to the department, but the minister, the premier and senior officials. Again, I've said this to this House before, amazed at the technology and what's been achieved for over a quarter of a century ago and what the potential is. I mean what we've done has only scratched the surface. These are the oil industry people. I don't mean the people who are worried about their shared dividends as shareholders; these are the rank and file, the people who drill the wells; the people who unload the supply vessels; the people who make sure everybody is safe on board; the people who ensure that the operations are in line with everything environmental.

These are the people who are telling us that. They're telling us that and then I have a smile on my face that our oil and gas industry is vibrant, alive and has a great future. But at the same time, we have to send a message to the world that we are open for business. We're open because we understand the value of this industry and we're not afraid to take some risks.

Now, the risks can't be that it's going to be detrimental if it doesn't work. I realize – and I'll preach more than most people – that government shouldn't be in the business of creating employment. They should never be. Sometimes, unfortunately, it's forced to because either circumstance or the environment itself or timing dictates that something is more important to go against what would normally be their philosophy. Government should be in the business of setting the environment, the tone, the policy regulatory processes and possibly directing the educational needs of certain industries. We have been extremely good at it.

Let's go back to when this started in the early '80s when the Hibernia process was being talked about, when the Atlantic Accord was signed, when there was hope here that we were diversifying. We all know what happened to our fishing industry, which is still a very viable industry and I think has a very vibrant future and it continues to be and still will be one of our major financial contributors to the economy of this province, but we needed something.

Even in those days the mining industry, which is very valuable – like my colleague who grew up in a mining town, I'm a fifth generation of a mining family and then to see it go from boom to bust was disheartening. To see that the mining industry then started to take a downward swing and now to see where we are again. To see that we have diversified into other types of minerals that we weren't even into at one point, particularly out in some areas in Central Newfoundland.

It tells me that our industries in this province are still very vibrant and it tells me partnering with people in those industries is not a bad thing. I have been fortunate enough to have been to a number of the mining conferences out in the Baie Verte area. I have to say I say this with pure respect: Because it is not in the middle of a downtown city, you would sometimes question if they could put off something of that magnitude when you think of it. But when you have people from all over the world attend and it is a class A operation and you learn so much. In a classroom setting in the college system, I learned as much from people who are from China talking about exploration down there and what their industry means. When I'm hearing from European countries, when I hear from all other places of this country.

But when I see the skill set of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the lead from our college system to our university system, what they're doing, and I see all that in the Baie Verte peninsula and those communities there, I'm saying we have not only a vibrant industry there, but we have an unbelievable skill set. A human skill set that is second to none. For that skill set to flourish and move beyond just our own borders here and have people not move away but have people come here to learn from us or people come and say train us in your skill set so we can go back to our own jurisdictions and pass on that knowledge and that particular skill set.

I had one of the reporters in the scrum today ask me that question: Do you think you've asked enough questions on Terra Nova? And my response: We've asked everything we possibly think we could. We've asked about additional information that would be beneficial to us making some decisions, making some recommendations, or maybe 100 per cent siding with the government that the path they've taken is the right path. But the issue was about we don't know. We literally don't know. The gaps there don't give us enough confidence to be able to say this is what we should do, this is what the government should do, or collectively between us all we all should walk away from it. We don't know.

So that's the question there. I did say to the reporter that this is not over yet. We haven't given up, and I would hope and expect nor has the government given up. But particularly I'm hoping that the oil industry themselves haven't given up on this. I'm hoping somewhere in a boardroom or a Zoom room where somebody is actually now still having a conversation, or there are some officials of companies that are crunching numbers and looking at potential investments or looking at how they can defer certain expenses to be able to make this project continue where it needs to go. Or someone to have the innovation and the foresight to be able to say, you know what, we have a vibrant industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're going to stay with that. Even if it's not as profitable – if our margins are 22 per cent and it's not as profitable as some of our other projects here or in other jurisdictions, we're going to stay with.

But to do that – and I said it earlier – we, in this province, need to set the environment. The financial environment, the investment environment and the technical supports that is necessary to do that. That's the role and responsibility of government. If it's around tax regimes, if it's around dividends, if it's around equity share, whatever it may be, those options should all be there for discussion. Doesn't mean you're going to take all of them. Doesn't mean you're going to take any of them. It might meant that you mesh a couple together because that works in one area. It might mean you don't touch anything; you let it all go naturally to one entity.

So I wanted to talk about that because, at the end of the day, I wanted to remind this reporter that we've done everything. Everything, I think, in our power here to advise government, support workers, support the oil industry and support the oil companies to come to a solution. Right now, again as I said, it's worrisome for me because there's so much at stake.

When I had the opportunity yesterday out on the Confederation Building steps to talk to some of the individuals directly affected by it – it's heart wrenching when you don't know if you're going to have employment. And unfortunately you're in an atmosphere in an industry right now that isn't exactly booming. There aren't exactly direct opportunities next week to jump and change your jobs.

Now, do we know? Are we confident the oil industry will come back? No doubt it will. Particularly if we set the proper environment and the proper tone here to do it. Because as I said earlier, we already have the resources. We have the cleanest energy around, the cleanest oil energy. We have, by far, the most skilled individuals to be able to do that. And we already have our infrastructure. We have our ice-free ports. We have what I hope – in another one of those optimistic things – is a refinery up and operational in the very near future. We're hoping and very optimistic, because that's another cornerstone of what the oil industry means and the draw and attraction for people.

So I do want to reiterate again to all those who were out there yesterday, to all those workers who were affected by it, to all those supply companies, all those who benefit from it – people forget it's not just the workers who jump on a ship and go out or on a helicopter to go out. They are very important, because they're the front-line people who are doing the work. But it's all those other companies who provide services. It might mean the groceries that go out to feed all the individuals out there. Or it might mean technical support that's necessary. Or it might mean somebody having to go out and spend two weeks away from their family because they work for a contracting company doing something specific to ensure people are safer out there and the operations are working so that there is no slowdown and there is no gap in services for people. So that's the worry part here.

I'm also worried because I wasn't reassured by the federal minister yesterday. There's no slight on the provincial minister and there's no slight on the Premier or the government at this point. But yesterday my slight to anybody was the federal minister did nothing, said nothing that would reassure me that they have an understanding of what this means to the people of this province; have an understanding of the impact this could have on the oil industry nationally, globally and our stake in that. I did not get a real, true sense that the first priority would be the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador, from what he would find to foster or advocate for that the federal government's role and responsibility would be here.

I was taken back by that. I thought it was a dialogue with some workers about nothing that was relevant to them. I think that was the response I noticed from people, particularly when I spoke to them. So that's worrisome. When our minister, when the minister responsible for Natural Resources is a home-grown individual who should have a better understanding of the value and the need here, and I don't see that individual as our champion, then that's worrisome. That's why I say that's worrisome right now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I understand MPs, various roles up there, other MPs that are here. I'm not singling any of them out, because I've worked with other MPs and I understand different roles and responsibilities, people have different skill sets and people do things differently. Behind the scenes, they do work for their constituents. Maybe they lobby not as publicly as people would think and want behind the scenes to get things for our province. I respect that. So I don't disrespect any of them going up there. Nor do I disrespect Minister O'Regan, but I do have a concern.

When you're in that position, when you have that ability and in an hour of our need, in the crisis time you don't step up and do everything in your power – if that means you have to work with the oil companies, if it means you have to flex your muscle with the oil companies, if it means you have to flex your muscle with your own cabinet. Let's not forget why we're still a very vibrant, alive province: somebody like John Crosbie. We all know the story. He stood his ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, he went to his cabinet, he went to his prime minister and said, this is not just about John Crosbie; this is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He went one bigger. He said this is about the people of this great country of ours; we'll all gain from that. Because of who John Crosbie was, because of his respect within his caucus – and no doubt, he had people there who wouldn't support it.

No doubt, I suspect there was a difference of opinion in the provincial Cabinet here on where things are going right now, as it has been when I was a Cabinet minister. We don't always agree; we come from different perspectives. But I will tell you John Crosbie stood up and convinced the prime minister who took a risk also. Who had no real loyalty to Newfoundland and Labrador, no real connection here, about the oil industry and went against some of his counterparts and some of his own caucus and cabinet ministers to look at something. Had a little bit more vision. That Newfoundland and Labrador being prosperous makes the rest of this Confederation prosperous.

We've all seen when we ran into a bit of a bump in the road with Hibernia and that it all could have come to a complete stop, that it was the federal government who stepped up and said, you know what, we have a role, a responsibility but, more importantly, we have an ability to do the right thing here, to continue to make things going. They bought a stake in this industry because they believed in the industry, they believed in Newfoundland and Labrador and they believed in the workers who were going to make that a vibrant industry.

I guarantee you, $5 billion later they didn't make the wrong investment, Mr. Speaker, with out a doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: It wasn't the wrong investment in Hibernia, it wasn't the wrong investment in the oil industry and it wasn't the wrong investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guarantee you it wasn't the wrong investment in the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

That's the foresight we need here and we need it from Ottawa. We need that partnership. I don't care what the political stripe is up there. We need vision and we need support because we have a vibrant future, we have an extremely vibrant future. We're part of this Confederation but we also have responsibilities in it. We also have obligations and so does the government have responsibilities for us, and obligations. Their obligation and responsibility is to ensure that we are a vibrant province.

Mr. Speaker, I see the hour of the day. We're ready to take our supper break.

I do adjourn debate, seconded by the Member for the Conception Bay South, and that we'll return after the supper break, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The motion is that we do adjourn now until 5 p.m.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Six.

SPEAKER: Sorry.

This House sits adjourned until 6 p.m.

June 15, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 17A

The House resumed at 6 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh sorry, I apologize; we have to bring the House back.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wouldn't want to pre-empt the Leader of the Opposition but I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's indeed an honour to come back again after our supper break to continue debate on the 2021-22 budget that will reflect the programs and services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and reflect the fiscal situation that we're facing; hopefully, the plan to move things forward, stabilize the financial woes of our province and start us on the path to a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, this is my 40th budget where I've been directly, or even indirectly but indirectly still fairly close to budgets. I've been fortunate enough going back 40 budgets ago to either be directly involved in pre-budget consultations or sitting in this House because I worked for departments where I had to ensure things were relevant and advise our communications people of what potential questions could be coming. Also, I worked for a Crown agency of government where our budget was hinging on what was happening in the House of Assembly.

Obviously, for four years I had the privilege of chairing Committee, so I know exactly what Estimates is all about and I know the integral workings of the budget process. I particularly know and appreciate the work of the civil service and what they do. I have not heard one person on our side since I have been on the Opposition side criticize departments for not having the information to be able to answer questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I have been a minister and no doubt as minister sometimes you're coy on your answers because you either don't want to share all the information right now or it's information that's probably not the best time to share it, because there may be other things in the works that you want to do. Or this might be relevant to some good announcement that is coming down the road so you massage it somewhat at the end of the day.

But when you have the civil service who specifically can give you intricate details so that you know when you ask those questions in Opposition that the information you're getting is – not only is it accurate but it's based on the path forward that the intent of the budget would be to ensure that the programs and services are funded and the money is being spent on the line items where it would need to go. I have been fortunate to be in that category. I also got to sit as one of those staff in my former career to get to answer some questions for people, so I had a good understanding of what goes on in here.

You get a different perspective when you're a minister, because it's not only about answering the questions – the notes are already done by the bureaucrats themselves – but you also have to feel that what you're selling is actually what you believe in. The line items, the programs funding and where you're going to invest for government is going to be to the benefit of the people of this province.

No doubt, people forget – and I'll just do a little education for the general public who may be watching – a budget doesn't happen overnight. The printed booklet might be done overnight, but the months – and I do mean months. I suspect every administration has its starting and end time, but early fall every department is intricately looking at how the budget lines from the previous budget went; what particular nuances or situations or programs did they run into that had to be adjusted; what are the new changing trends or what are some emerging things that they had no foresight on – never could anticipate that happened, emergencies happen, that you start budgeting for. I suspect you also start looking at new, innovative ways to address issues for people. That could be in anything from health care to education, to social programs, to infrastructure, for example.

As ministers, the objective ministers just drive the headings as such and probably set the tone, based on what you've heard from the general public around what policies and programs should be the primary objective of that line department. But the civil service then goes to work to first, balancing and projecting – because you still normally have three to four to five months left in your budget process to know that the uptake is going to be there to justify it. Or if it isn't, then an analysis is done to determine whether or not that program is still necessary in the next budget lines or reduced, or increased as part of that process.

If there are some issues there that weren't spent for a particular reason, that has to be identified to know what went wrong or why there was a change in what was the expectation for that particular program. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes on by the civil service here to ensure that the budget lines, once produced and once the debate in this House of Assembly – particularly the line by line critiqued in Estimates are accurate, can be justified and can have the documentation to back up exactly the relevance and pertinence and, more importantly, the way that this is going to be implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to thank the civil service for doing that. I want to thank the agencies, boards and commissions that work to ensure that the information is relevant and given. In a lot of cases, a lot of these agencies, boards and commissions and/or the civil service must find ways to be more economically efficient. At times, there are always challenges there. They go back and look at and analyze exactly what it is that they're offering and how they can offer that in a more efficient and financially less-burdening-to-the-province manner.

I want to acknowledge that. I've had some very unique situations. I've read the 2000 budget because there were a lot of similarities to where we are right now in certain cases. I read the '89 budget because it was again similar to where we are. There are always lulls, peaks and valleys in our financial woes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'd like to be able to say that, unfortunately, there should be a process or there should be plan that it doesn't happen, but no matter what administration – and it's not labelled to one particular party – circumstances change. The volatility of your commodities and the volatility of your resources hinge on other jurisdictions and the world markets. You can plan all the things in the world, but sometimes it doesn't work out. I saw that as a minister at one point when oil was nearly $80 a barrel, and before we wrote our budget, it was down at $36 a barrel. We were hinging, as were the previous administration before us, that that was going to generate X number of dollars in revenue. You have to adjust accordingly.

To get my head around this particular budget and what was being proposed, I wanted to go back to some former budgets that were close to it and may be relevant to some of the same challenges and may be a different perspective when it came to what was causing the lull financially or what was causing some of the other wants that people would like to have but no longer were viable in our province and the changing tone when it came to the demand on services.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out from '89 to 2000 to 2021, the aging demographic and the costing of health care is a dramatic change. Even in education, while there may be a shift, the shift has been that health care has overtaken education. In some of these budgets, education was the biggest expenditure in the province at the time. Again, if you look at the demographics, double the number of students existed then than did senior citizens. Now the demographic has quadrupled in the opposite manner. You have to adjust accordingly.

Plus, I give credit, over the last number of decades, that we've modernized our education process, we've put in extra supports to ensure that every student is engaged in our system and get the best supports possible to ensure that it's an inclusive system and that they have access to that education. Is it a perfect system? Not at all. Are there a lot of gaps in service? Yes. Are we doing a lot of good things? Of course we are. Are there tens of thousands of professionals providing services? Of course there are. Could we use another $50 million to provide services? Of course we could. But you try to work within the parameters of what you have and the monies you have to be able to provide the best quality service for all groups in our society.

I tried to get my head around it because – and I'll say this with all respect – I don't know if this is a great budget in getting us where we go, or if there are a lot of gaps in what happens there, only because it appears to set a framework that could get us on the right path. I say it appears because the devil is in the detail.

My colleague, the critic for Finance, has asked questions and we've gotten good dialogue back and forth, but there's a lot of supporting documentation that I think would make it easier for us to determine if this is the path forward that will be the light at the end of the tunnel and will keep our society in a positive light and that things are going to improve and get better.

I'm still hopeful, as we have debate over some of the other money bills here, that there will be some more information discussed. Maybe it's just that we're not interpreting the information in the same manner yet, so that hopefully will get clearer as we go through it.

Right now we're open to trying to see what approach forward is the best for the people of this province, and the best to address our financial challenges. We accept that. There's no debate about the financial situation that certain things have to be done, that a different path has to be taken. We haven't disagreed with the government on that. We've seriously talked about reviews of boards and agencies and commissions. We've talked about our educational institutions, how we better fund them so that we get better outcomes. We've talked about how we approach health care so that we get better outcomes and we have a healthier society.

Sometimes it might mean you invest money to save money in the long run. That's the balance that you must find when it comes to figuring out the best path forward.

In the debate tonight, we're going to be talking about – and I know the Premier will talk about – the path forward and the framework that's been put forward with this budget and the fact that it isn't a budget that would at this point stall the economy. I'll give credit to that. That was one of the fears when we knew a budget was coming down after the Greene report, because the Greene report painted a very sombre situation. It actually basically drew a line in the sand that said if we don't move past this line, we're destined to fail as a province. When you say things like there'll be somebody else administering our operations and that the federal government will have sole ownership of Newfoundland and Labrador's future, then that makes you very alarmed at the future of this province.

I think that may be done for a reason. It may be to really frighten people into saying, you know what? While it's not doom and gloom, there are certain things that have to be done. Sometimes a reality check is perhaps the best thing for you to really look back and prioritize what are the most important things in your life and what are the most important things for a sustainable economy and a sustainable society.

While we've talked about the Greene report and I think there are some very important recommendations there – I think there are some real important approaches forward – I do still have challenge with some other ones. I'm not dismissing all of them, but I'm saying there is some other analysis that needs to be done or the information – if the analysis was already done – to be shared so that we can make an informed decision on if this is the path forward on some of these recommendations. Is it a combination of certain ones at a certain time in a certain program? Is it a combination of some in different stages over periods of years? Is it a combination of some in certain budgets that you move forward?

There is a framework now, I think, between everything we have. It is not just based on this budget and it is not just based on the Greene report, because to me the Greene report is based on about 35 reports going back to Dr. Doug House's Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment. There are a number of things in that that I remembered as a young civil servant working with the commission and actually presenting on behalf of a couple of outside agencies to the commission about how we stimulate employment in Newfoundland and Labrador; how we grow the economy itself; the role of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, what that meant; the role of the industries that we had that were vibrant and were the mainstay of our society at the time.

Looking from then to where we are now, nearly 35 years later, seeing what industries are still there that are still vibrant and still can be built upon; what new industries, when we talk about diversification, that really were either just talked about then or didn't exist; and what industries really didn't flourish and, if they didn't, why they didn't flourish, as part of that whole process.

There are a few things there that I think the framework determines that we have the ability to do certain things. I'm not sure that we have put enough meat on some of them, and maybe that wasn't Moya Greene and her committee's responsibility, but I think to really move forward, we need to do that.

We need to look at what agriculture means in Newfoundland and Labrador, what we invest in that. Do we go all in on it and make that one of our biggest priorities now because it is an industry that can grow? It is also an industry that gives us food security. Is it an industry, then, that can be part of our exporting versus importing? There are a few things there that I would like to know, because I am not fluent in that; I wouldn't know that. A little bit of knowledge of agriculture for me is probably more dangerous because I would think it could only go skewed one way versus the multitude of things that would be out there. I would look at those things.

I do believe hydroponics is a very important thing. I know we dabbled with it and it is probably the bad word for a PC here to say it, but we dabbled with it. I think the concept was perhaps the best thing ever done. I think the implementation was perhaps one of the worst things that were ever done. Where it was located, the crop that they were trying to grow at the time and maybe even some of the partnerships that were developed at the time were questionable. But the potential for the industry and the actual technology, to me, was second to none.

I got to tour it at the time and talked to some of the actual workers that were there, who were – it is ironic – rank-and-file people. These were people who were in the farming industry themselves who went to work there because they wanted to learn the technology. But just the skill set they brought, adding to the technology, it was amazing some of the stuff.

I saw some 55-year old farmers from Central Newfoundland come up with ways with the hydroponics, the way to run lines so that water would come in better and the vapours would be better for growing as a process. These were probably people who never had any technical training in the agricultural industry. It tells you about the innovation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they're in their element. The fortunate thing in this province, our element is basically, in my opinion, in every industry. There's nothing that we don't have the capabilities to excel in. That was another one.

I do look at the Greene report. I've analyzed it with the budget. I see there are subtle nuances; there are subtle adjustments into where Greene is. I'm not in any way, shape or form criticizing that, because I don't see that as a bad thing. You've heard me say in the past – and I think some of my colleagues here have said it – maybe we needed to move a little bit quicker on some of the things we're doing, but that all depends. Maybe there is some heavier movement in this budget, it's just we're not quite sure where it is or the information is not all out there yet. Or maybe it's not the timing for the information to be out.

Don't forget, a budget is an evolving process that takes 12 months. Sometimes, as they say, it comes to fruition on month 11 before you realize the benefits of that. So I'm giving benefit of the doubt that there's some more information that maybe can be shared with us that may turn us to believe that this will take us in the right direction. I'm hopeful that the Greene report doesn't become the bible for the administration to set all of its tone. I would hope it would become one of the frameworks, but not the only one that you refer to when you're making decisions around the future economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and the path forward.

That's not to take away anything from Moya Greene or the 65 appendices of information that went to them, because a lot of them – I've known some of the orchestrators of them, the architects of them. I've believed in a lot of what they've written. What they've studied and what they've looked at has been very credible. There are parts of that which have already been implemented. There are parts that were implemented and unfortunately let go before it got to a point where it showed that it would be viable. That unfortunately becomes a little bit about politics. Sometimes you'll only half implement something because you're afraid of the political backlash. That sometimes does more damage than it does well.

We need to be diligent enough and, I suppose, strong enough to make decisions that may not be popular. They may not be popular immediately, they may not be popular with specific groups and they may not be popular with a financial sector of our society or a particular governance agency. But if they're backed up with facts, data and proper analysis, and they fit within a plan that actually shows the benefit to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – regardless if some may benefit more from it but at the end of the day, the major benefactors are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – then we have to stand our ground.

I've said it before in this House and I'll continue to say it: We've taken that stand that if there's a collective approach to doing something that improves our financial situation, improves our competiveness on the world market, if it improves our industries to be able to be globally known and acknowledged, if it improves the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more control over their own assets, then we're here to collaborate and find a way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: If it means potentially we all have to take a hit from certain sectors in the general public, well then you know what, we're willing to do that. I can tell you, everybody on this side of this House here wants as their legacy that when they walk out of this door they can hold their heads high and say, at the end of the day, we left this place in better shape than when we found it.

Every society should look to do that and I think we all aspire to do that. I don't think any politician before us, or any of these pictures of any of the individuals who sat in that chair, Mr. Speaker, didn't aspire for the same thing. We may have different approaches; we may have different philosophies. We may even have different moral beliefs, but I would hope the biggest stance and the biggest commonality would be at the end of the day we found a way to do what was right, rectify some of the wrongs and put us on the right path forward, so that our successors are at a good place to be able to continue moving things forward.

I wanted to talk about some of the other things. Particularly, what people don't know, my real passion – I shouldn't say real passion, but one of my favourite passions is and value I think as an industry that we very seldom talk about – is the not-for-profit sector. I think the community sector, what they do from an economic point of view, what they do from a social point of view, what they do from a mental and physical health point of view and what they do to even drive and support our infrastructure is second to none.

I think we sometimes dismiss them – and I say we as a general society – because we always feel, well, they only exist because government had given them some money to start, or there's a special program for them where it's easy for them to get up and running. But I think people forget if you really look at budget lines of any not-for-profit organization, any agency that government sponsors through some way, shape or form that's not an entrenched Crown agency or board or commission, are, at this point, probably nowhere from 1 to 5 per cent receiving government funds. They may get a load of money that they're getting from different agencies and that, but at the end of the day they generate much more than they receive from the coffers of the general public here. That's a testament to them.

If you look at some of the agencies that are out there now – and we have a multitude of volunteer agencies – they might have four or five staff, but they have 12, 15 or 20 volunteers who are almost the same as staff. A lot of them come with a skill set that they've learned somewhere else, from an educational thing or an experience point of view, which they then pass on that doesn't cost five cents to the coffers of the general public, yet provides an unbelievable set of supports in this province.

I want to tie that in. I want to talk about one particular organization because I think it should be the crux of what we're doing in this House now. I say the crux because I'm talking about an organization that serves young people. If we don't start thinking about the future of our young people, if it's about the oil industry, if it's the tech industry, if it's about health care, if it's about education or if it's about any industry that we're talking – the fishing industry, the forestry industry, whatever it may be. If we don't find ways to keep young people engaged, keep them active in their communities – and it could be in any rural community from Nain, Labrador, to Bay Roberts in Conception Bay and all communities in between – then we're going to miss an opportunity and we're going to be in hard shape in the next generation or so. That's a reality of why we need to do some of these things.

I'm just going to read a letter because I want to tie it into one particular organization. I'm going to talk about them; I'm going to give them some kudos because I think they do great work. I think they represent what we're trying to do in this House of Assembly, collectively, as a province. In every little nook and cranny and every little corner, they do things that are above and beyond and thinking outside the box to engage people and address some of the social and economic needs of people in this province.

I'm just going to read this: Since the first CYN site opened their doors in 2001, the Community Youth Network has played a pivotal role in enhancing the well-being of youth and reducing poverty in our province. This work is important, as the social and emotional prosperity of our youth is a direct predictor of the economic health and quality of life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This past year has been marked by social and economic turmoil. Despite these challenges, community organizations nimbly continue to provide much-needed supports to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Organizations comprising the Community Youth Network across the province pull together and advanced and involved as many people as possible to ensure uninterrupted access to valuable resources for our young people.

As demonstrated in this report, the dedication and passion of the people working within the Community Youth Network was on full display this year, as they not only continued regular programming, but added new initiatives to meet the challenging needs of youth and their communities during the global health pandemic.

This annual report provides a snapshot of just some of the innovative programs delivered by the Community Youth Network and their positive impact on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This letter was signed by Premier Dr. Andrew Furey.

That speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier understands, as we do, the value of organizations and not-for-profits, but particularly those who work for young people and, in some case, challenging young people. Not only do they do valuable work in all parts of our province. There are Community Youth Networks in Nain. They're in coastal areas in Labrador. They're in the Northern Peninsula. They're in the Burin Peninsula. They're in the heart of Central Newfoundland and Labrador. They're in the Avalon Peninsula area. They're in the St. John's urban areas, the Corner Brook area. They're everywhere here.

They represent what we need to see. What we need to see here is a collective approach to solving our problems in an innovative way. Who better than young people to be innovative and creative and think outside the box. Not label people for either coming with a different perspective or not being cognizant to be able to jump right on board with a particular idea.

I want to talk about the Community Youth Network because, to me, it becomes of relevance here. They were established in 2001, another tumultuous time for us economically. If people remember what happened, that was the offset of our financial woes that took us for the next five or six years. I look back and compare; it's a similar situation we're in. There was an investment at the time and I give credit; it was the former administration. Premier Grimes saw the value of working with the federal government, of leveraging some money to find a new way and a creative way of improving the lives of young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That began a journey that saw expansion to 40 sites in Newfoundland and Labrador but gave communities stake and control over their own destiny in a lot of cases. The core funding that was given by government was only a small proportion of what they managed to raise, what they managed to leverage from corporations and agencies. They developed their own partnerships with the federal government that we weren't even aware of to bring programs and services and employ people. That, to me, sets the template of where we are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We've got an agency that deals with everything from education to health care, to mental health, to re-employment, to social engagement, to community supports, to every sector that you would think that a good society needs to have as its key component of the fabrics of inclusion. They've done that with support from government and it's continued to happen. It continued under the previous PC administration; it is continuing now under the Liberal administration. I think it's a predecessor of what would be done and it sets the tone for where we need to go. I say this because when we ran into the same situations that we have now, they ran into that then. People didn't give up. People didn't say: We need to cut everything; we need to cut all of our spending. Society got creative and governments got creative at the time of putting money in the right direction.

I keep going back to saying sometimes you need to spend money to make money. At the time, putting $3 million or $4 million in a program like that – keep in mind, now, in 2001, the budgets weren't at $8 billion. That was substantial at the time. The fallout in a positive manner since then, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been generated from that but the hundreds of millions of dollars – or the immeasurable, priceless services that have been provided to keep young people on the right track, who are no longer the young people of the day; who are the leaders in our society now. I ran into one of the individuals who was a young person on one of the CYNs that I knew years ago who is now a key person with Verafin. We're all very aware of what that's done to put Newfoundland and Labrador on the map.

That tells you about what agencies like that. I'm specifically saying the CYNs, but I'm using them as the example of the potential we have here for giving communities an opportunity and the resources and the supports to take control and have a major stake in designing their own futures and letting them offset some of the services and that which we may not be able to have or provide because the resources are just not there. There are going to be decisions made on how you provide various services in various communities with our geography.

Finding creative ways, bringing in partnerships, letting the general public know that we value their input but, more importantly, we value their resource to be able to take a leadership role in providing services and partnering with them. We have continuously talked over here about developing partnerships with every entity in our society. Developing partnerships with those outside of our own jurisdiction, we're not adverse to that. Developing partnerships on a global perspective, which would have probably never been heard of 20 years ago, but Newfoundland and Labrador, the innovative way we do things, how we have made a mark on the world markets, no matter what it may be, gives us that opportunity to do that.

To first make that work, we have to do that in-house. We have to be able to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and those who have a skill set in this province are engaged more in helping us solve our own problems, our own financial woes; helping us find creative, innovative ways to provide the same services or better quality service more equitably and in a quicker manner and more open to the masses to do that. We need to find a way with technology to engage as many people as possible to get their feedback.

I get that when we start engaging the general public, we're going to get feedback and we're going to get a lot of negative feedback because some people, for the sake of being negative, will only talk about the negative stuff. But let's dissect that. Let's talk about those who are going to share great creative ideas; are going to share their experience with us; and are going to share their optimism, the same that we all have in this House of Assembly, and I would hope most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have.

While we all get emails – and we all get them – where they're upset over a certain circumstance or a certain decision or a certain view that we may have, if you read closely, the underlying thing is people are doing that. They're lashing out or they're sharing their opinion because they want this province to flourish. The want it to excel. They want to make sure that we're told we either need to rethink what we've done or we need to continue with the stance that we've taken.

That's on both sides of this House. That's not isolated to the Opposition that everybody's going to rah-rah because what we said is the only way to do it. Far from it. We know for every action that we have, there's a reaction, and every view we have, somebody has a counterview. Somewhere in the middle, I think, is the right view. That's how we do the right thing and get to the right end result.

We've been doing a lot of good debate on our budget here. We have a lot of dialogue. We've dissected some things. I may be corrected, but I think on this side there's still some information that we would like to have for us to really know where this budget is going to take us. We're extremely optimistic that the province does have a bright future if the right plan is put in play. We'd like to be able to say this is the right play and the right plan, but we're not quite there yet.

Maybe your caucus is there, and I hope you are, because maybe you have a little bit more access to some information. Maybe the Minister of Finance can over the next week or so, while we're still in debate here and when we talk on some of the bills – that may make it clear to us. That'll be even better. That'll be perfect, because we don't want to not support things in this House because we don't have information. That's not right and it's not fair to anybody.

If we don't agree with it, then we'll have trouble supporting it and we'll tell you that. If we agree with it, then it will be based on the fact that the information was relevant and clarified any challenges or any concerns that we may have had.

I do ask, in the next week or so, as we're into our last week or so of debate on the budget, and particularly all the bills that are attached to it before the budget itself can be fully implemented, that if there are questions asked, as clear as possible, the information be shared; if there is information that we didn't ask for because we didn't think it was a part of it but can be of a benefit to us understanding how the budget is going to move us to the next level, please share that. We ask that.

We do ask, at the end of the day, that nothing be taken personally if we're challenging something around a particular line item. Or what would be thought to be the benefit of a particular program if it's funded, or if there's a particular program that's going to be cut, if we challenge whether or not we think there is still benefit to having that program. I'd like to have open dialogue where somebody explains to me and to this side of the House that you know what, we've analyzed it, we've looked at it, but this is not the best – while it still might serve a purpose, there is another way of doing the same thing, getting better outcomes and probably doing it for more people.

I'm a big user of the economy of scale. If you can find a more economical way to do more with less, then that's the best approach forward. There's nobody that will not agree to that because if you save on one side, you either have the ability to address your own financial needs, or put that money in another program that also benefits the people of this province.

As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to hearing the dialogue and the discussion on the number of bills that we'll talk about over the next week or so. I do solemnly ask that we try to find the best path forward for all of us. This is a very important budget. It will be the framework for where we go over the next four or five years. There's no quick fix to our financial situation, we all know that, but we have to find the path forward.

Hopefully we can find that. I look forward to further debate on the budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

First of all, let me thank the hon. Member opposite for mentioning the third sector, the community sector, who are not only important contributors to our social fabric, but provide a model of cross-sectional approach that we should all support, grow and aspire to be more like. It's not only an important social space but an incredible economic driver that has good returns for the province socially and fiscally. I echo and commend the Member opposite for recognizing the importance of such a sector.

Budget 2021 marks a key step in the beginning of the transformation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. This spirit is reflected in the very title of the budget itself: Change starts here. It shows the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that our government is prepared to make bold decisions to address the fiscal challenges we face. Those bold decisions are and will continue to be evidence based, balanced and measured. This budget is about taking control of the provincial finances and sending a signal that we are transforming government and modernizing for today's world.

We're taking immediate action while recognizing that this is not the time for severe austerity. We're supporting families and businesses, investing in growth industries to build our economy and finding smarter ways to deliver critical services. Newfoundland and Labrador, we didn't get here overnight and there is no single budget or magic bullet that will fix everything and turn it all around. I'm sure every Member of this House really wishes there was.

It's impossible to talk about this budget, Mr. Speaker, without recognizing and thanking the incredible leadership the Deputy Premier, Finance Minister and President of Treasury Board has shown in putting this together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: Working with the stakeholder groups and organizations, listening and taking that feedback into account, not to mention my own pen on her speech at times, which I'm sure was frustrating.

I must also acknowledge and thank all the dedicated, hard-working people within the department who worked around the clock, taking time away from their families and their personal lives to do this important piece of work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: I hope that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Members of this House of Assembly can see that we are all, as a government and the members of the public service, grateful for the opportunity to serve you at this critical juncture. Our government is fully focused on building a brighter and stable future for our beautiful province, as evidenced in this budget.

Let's take a look at some of the big pieces in Budget 2021, starting with the transformations. Mr. Speaker, transformation is powerful and so is the outcome. We are taking steps towards a sustainable fiscal future. Change, as we all know, can be hard, but it gives us the opportunity to discover new ways of delivering services, become more efficient and agile and become better versions of ourselves. Change is good; change is necessary.

Budget 2021 sets direction to modernize and transform government, to improve service delivery and to address financial concerns. We are currently evaluating Nalcor in order to streamline and remove duplications and, ultimately, save money for the Provincial Treasury. We are merging Crown corporations into core government, beginning with the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and NL911. We're taking steps to integrate the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District into the Department of Education to make better use of investments in education and ensure that investments target the classrooms and teachers, not administration and executives.

When it comes to health care, we know that we need to focus on better outcomes and better value for the billions we spend in that system every single year. The corporate services of the four regional health authorities are being integrated to streamline the delivery of functions, such as payroll, finance, accounting, human resources, information management and technology and procurement.

In partnership with business, social enterprises and other organizations, we will establish a process to maintain and improve service delivery through joint solutions. This will more effectively deliver facilities management, provincial registries and ferries. We need to spend our money wisely, Mr. Speaker, invest in the social determinants of health and support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in living healthier lifestyles to be well overall. That encompasses both physical and mental health. Any savings found in the health care system by working more efficiently, by doing things better, smarter and modern will only go back into the people of this province. These transformations will address our province's significant debt profile and reduce our expenditure on debt servicing.

The projected deficit of 2021, as we know, is $826 million. An improvement of $1 billion from Budget 2020. This is the first step in our government's plan to return to a fiscal balance within five years. Budget 2021 targets reaching surplus by 2026-27. That's a target we believe we can reach if we all work together.

There are plenty of other smart, responsible measures in this budget that will help us get there, Mr. Speaker, starting with the interest costs on our debt service alone, one of our largest expenditures. By taking a more proactive approach to Treasury management, our government will reduce debt expense by up to $10 million annually. Being more active in the capital markets will consequently result in more efficient borrowing.

We also updated our income tax structure to ensure our province's high-income earners are paying their fair share. In this year's budget, we are adjusting tax brackets for higher income earners and creating new brackets for those making over $250,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. For anyone with taxable income of less than $135,973, there are no personal income tax changes. The changes will bring in an estimated $15.3 million in additional revenue, while keeping us comparable and competitive to taxation in Atlantic Canada.

One of the initiatives I'm really excited about in this budget, Mr. Speaker, is the Physical Activity Tax Credit. This will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 per family. This credit is estimated at $7 million. It will be a helpful incentive for families as they look to access sport and recreational activities and become healthier. It also holds the added benefit of supporting local health and wellness industries. From the soccer pitch to the dance studio to martial arts dojos and beyond, physical activity helps young people develop, build confidence and practise leadership, and offers a sense of enjoyment and well-being to people of all ages.

Physical activity is important in my own life and for my own health and mental wellness. I need it more now than ever before. We are fortunate to spend a lot of time as a family at the hockey rink or on the soccer pitch. This credit is designed to help make it easier for families and encourage them to participate in physical activities and healthy lifestyles.

But it's for people of all ages too, and it's important to remember that. Seniors benefit greatly from increased movement and socialization, and we hope this tax credit encourages seniors to participate in physical activities in their communities that will help their physical and mental health.

Budget 2021 includes investments to grow the economy and create jobs for a sustainable path forward, Mr. Speaker. The past year has been tough – and we know it – for families, communities and all industries. It's our responsibility to support the resiliency so that Newfoundland and Labrador emerges from the pandemic a healthy and prosperous place. The sense of hope and optimism in our province is palpable.

The spending in Budget 2021 is smart spending, strong investments. It's a continuation of spending to ensure that community groups, organizations, seniors, teachers, nurses, all those important, hard-working people in our province have the resources they need to do their critical work and meet their full potential.

Our government has committed $30 million for tourism and hospitality supports to alleviate pressures experienced by COVID-19.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: We all know that the tourism and hospitality industry was hit particularly hard by COVID-19 and we must be there to support them now. We have been hearing really positive things from operators now that we have some light at the end of the tunnel, reopening, welcoming family, friends and tourists back to Newfoundland and Labrador. Getting together again.

Our government has allocated $20 million for small business and community organization assistance to help with increased costs and losses as a result of the pandemic – another group hit hard by the pandemic. Our government has continued to show its commitment to small businesses and community organizations. Like the Members opposite, we see the value the work of these members do for our economy and our social fabric.

This budget has close to $600 million for infrastructure projects to help improve access to services and create more jobs for people in this province. We know that access to the Internet is critical and we've seen it now in this pandemic perhaps more than ever before. It is a priority for this government and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for families, for small businesses, for health care, for rural communities, Mr. Speaker. We hear this over and over when travelling the province and connecting with people, from Cow Head, down to the Boot and across the Island and Labrador.

The pandemic has highlighted again just how important connectivity, communication, virtually is for people, not just in the province or the country, but, indeed, all over the world. We have committed $25 million over the next three years to improve connectivity through cellular and broadband throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: Importantly, we will use government investments to leverage that private sector, maximizing the impact and the connectivity.

Our province is ripe with opportunities across sectors, and this budget makes strategic investments to ensure we maximize our collective force and potential. We have allocated $27 million to support economic development initiatives, including research and development, commercialization, regional development and business growth activities such as investment in our growing – thriving – technology sector.

An investment in the technology sector is an investment in all sectors, from fishery to mining to education and health care. The digital economy is providing economic growth and better services throughout the province and we are leading the country in this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: This budget also allocates $10 million for the film and television Equity Investment Program. This is an area of particular interest to me, again, because we see the potential for growth here, Mr. Speaker. The film and television industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is significant, attracting a number of productions. People want to shoot here. The landscape alone draws interest from all around the world.

During the pandemic we made history with two TV productions happening at the same time for the first time. And it's only going up from here.

This budget also features an additional $2.5 million for mineral geoscience data collection and interpretation, and $5 million for ArtsNL to support the incredibly talented artists in Newfoundland and Labrador – the people who help enrich the culture that makes this place so special, draws people here from around the world and makes us all feel special when we're elsewhere, Mr. Speaker.

Additional spending in Budget 2021 reflects federal government support, specifically focused on certain areas. These significant investments are a direct result of our government's close working relationship with our partners in Ottawa, including the $320 million in Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Recovery Assistance Fund and Safe Restart funding for municipalities and schools.

Mr. Speaker, this budget marks the beginning of a new era of transformation, of collaboration, of economic recovery and growth. In that same vein, today also begins the transition phase of the Together. Again. reopening plan. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will see select public health measures start to lift. The light at the end of the tunnel is drawing near.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: On June 23, we are welcoming Atlantic Canadians to our province and as early as July 1 we will be reuniting with family and friends from across our great country. This is possible thanks to the continued expertise of Dr. Fitzgerald and the whole team at Public Health; the dedication of our front-line health care workers; and the efforts, frankly, of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for following the public health guidelines and getting vaccinated.

Our vaccine rollout continues at an impressive pace and we are well positioned to address the continued impacts of COVID-19 on our population. I know, Mr. Speaker, from my conversations with friends around the world, we are the envy.

In Budget 2021, we are taking the responsible step of continuing to allocate $100 million to respond to demands for such things as personal protective equipment, testing and supporting vaccinations. This will ensure that we can continue to lift restrictions responsibly and all come together again.

Mr. Speaker, this budget set the course to achieve fiscal stability by commencing transformations to ensure we spend within our means while delivering quality service. It is not about doing less; it is about doing more, better. It ensures a return to fiscal balance within five years. This budget makes strategic economic investments to guide growth in key industries. It supports those that need a hand up, including those who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.

Once again, I would like to thank the Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and her team for their exceptional efforts in delivering this budget and setting the course, Mr. Speaker.

Change starts here, with this budget, with everybody in this House and with this government, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, it is moved and seconded that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of this government.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

SPEAKER: Seeing all Members present, all those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes): Mr. Furey, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Coady, Ms. Howell, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Davis, Mr. Abbott, Ms. Dempster, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Hogan, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warr, Mr. Pike, Ms. Stoyles, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lane, Mr. Trimper.

SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Brazil, Mr. Petten, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Wall, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Tibbs, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Dwyer, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 24; the nays: 15.

SPEAKER: I declare this motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Bill 8.

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

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

I received a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SPEAKER: All rise.

Dated the 11th day of June 2021:

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2022 by way of further Supply and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd: ____________________________________

Lieutenant-Governor (Judy May Foote, PC, ONL)

Please be seated.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier, that the message together with a bill be referred to a Committee of Supply.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are debating Bill 8, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 2022 the sum of $4,565,934,100.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

I'm sorry, the Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bonavista.

S. COADY: Do I speak first?

CHAIR: I'm sorry I didn't recognize the minister.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. I need to see hands up.

S. COADY: Thank you.

I have to wave more.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and thank you for your indulgence. I promise I won't be long.

This is the Supply Act, 2021, for main Supply. It's introduced following the completion of the budget debate. The main Supply bill is routine and an administrative measure. I will say that. An approval of this bill will ensure funds are available to meet government expenditures during the 2021-22 fiscal year and provide sufficient legislative authority for government to meet its financial obligations.

The requirement to introduce debate and pass a main Supply bill to cover government expenditures during the fiscal year is a requirement, Mr. Chair, of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Financial Administration Act. The introduction of this bill has no incremental impact on the province's financial position in '21-'22 beyond what is included in the budget of 2021-22.

The total amount of the main Supply bill is $4,565,934,100. This, when combined with the already approved $3.5 billion from Interim Supply, gives a total of $8,024,380,400. This, of course, ties to the total amount voted on in Statement III of the Estimates.

Now, Mr. Chair, you will recall that there were two Interim Supply bills approved for the fiscal year. Interim Supply, Bill 1, the amount from April 1 to May 31 was $2,086,721,900. Then Interim Supply Bill 2, which ran from June 1 to July 31, was $1,371,724,400. The total of both amounts is $3,458,446,300. The total time frame covered by both the Interim Supply bills was four months or 33 per cent of the fiscal year. Now, the main Supply bill will provide further funding for the remaining of the fiscal year up to March 31, 2022.

The total amount voted, $8,024,000,000, represents the total amount, total gross cash expenditures minus payments that are preapproved by statute such as interest payments, deferred pension contributions, debt –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. COADY: – management expenses and the salaries of the Auditor General and Comptroller General. The highest amounts can be attributed to health care, always the highest level of expenditure, which is not abnormal, and Innovation, Energy and Technology; a large increase in main Supply due to 100 per cent funded projects, which have no overall impact on our deficit.

So, Mr. Chair, I will say that in the Schedule attached to the bill under the Head of Expenditure there was a movement of a title of Municipal Affairs. I will be moving a slight amendment just to make sure we have it in order. It's supposed to be in alphabetical order and the numbers line up. This total amount is still the same, but I will move that at the appropriate time.

I think, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks by saying to the House that we've had a good number of hours debating budget. I look forward to their interactions on this main Supply bill and listening to the issues that are faced in their districts and hearing more about their concerns. I do appreciate the fact that the budget is now passed and this is falling from that main Supply.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The main Supply, as the minister just stated, is the final step of the budget; $4.5 billion is the amount that's needed. The sister bill that is coming, which would be the loan Supply, is what money we'll need to borrow up to March of next year. That is coming either tonight or tomorrow and that is $1.7 billion.

The next bill that will come will be the one that we're going to vote on, Mr. Chair, and that's what we're going to need to borrow in order to see through all the government functioning up to the end of March of next year. That's a significant amount of money that we'll need permission to borrow. I'm sure we'll play the capital markets and we'll do whatever we can to make sure that we get the best rate we possibly can, but the people in the District of Bonavista may be surprised that we do need to borrow that much money this year to see us through.

The Premier mentioned that we need bold decisions. They ought to be balanced and measured. I think all MHAs had a magazine that was delivered in our mail slots. It was the Atlantic Business Magazine and that was the March-April issue. The last page in that magazine was an article by John Risley. The title of the article was: Newfoundland and Labrador's budget cuts will be painful and unavoidable. That was the title.

What he had mentioned as key things that we ought to be doing; one was immigration. We need to grow our population, which is sound. He said that we need to invest in small business start-ups to grow our economy. We need to see something that's tangible to make sure we grow our small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is quite a revenue generator for our economy. That was there.

Then he wanted to know where the spending cuts were. We've heard some of these tonight. We talked about the merging of the Newfoundland and Labrador Eastern School District with the Department of Education to find efficiencies in the backroom financing and management of the finances. But what is gleaned from those savings will be going straight to the classrooms, which is what I would celebrate. Any savings, it's not going to go against the $1.7 billion that we're going to need to borrow, but it's going to go to make sure that those classrooms that need the extra resources, they will be attainable.

One thing that Risley did suggest – I'm not sure if the minister read that article or not –was: “Set up a transition fund by borrowing against the incremental proceeds available when the benefits of a revised Churchill Falls agreement begin to flow.” Whether the exact figure is that in 2041 we have $800 million to $1.2 billion coming into our coffers – if that is accurate, then what Risley is saying, that a transition fund can help bridge us between now and then, it ought to be a consideration.

I want to read the last paragraph that he states. We've talked a lot about Terra Nova today and yesterday. I guess with no announcement being forthcoming today we may be talking about Terra Nova tomorrow. John Risley states: “And, before I forget, make sure the door is wide open to exploration and production plans for the province's offshore energy sector.” Make sure the door is wide open to exploration and production plans for the province's offshore energy sector.

He says: “The world will wean itself off hydrocarbons, but in the meantime why does it make sense to hand the oil market to foreign interests where environmental regulations are much less restrictive than they are here?” That's a little redundant because we heard that being stated as well, and he names Venezuela.

He thought the carbon emissions of the oil that we would have are far better than what they would be in those markets that will be all there to step in to supply the parts of the world for the next decades. Maybe it should be something that we ought to look at as a country, certainly as a province, to market our oil, our energy sector. While we go towards the green sector, then we know that we're doing it as carbon-friendly as we possibly could.

One thing amiss is that we don't talk a lot about the fishery. The fishery now is my new portfolio, and while I dearly love education and to discuss education, the fishery is one now that I would look at that we have a wonderful renewable resource out in our oceans, a wonderful renewable resource, but I would say it is collapsing. I would think in the House if we look at how much we've heard from Fisheries in this sitting, the 50th sitting of the House of Assembly, not a lot.

I recall it being stated by a past premier of this province that they're on the record as saying – and I quote – “The biggest mistake of Confederation in 1949 was the ceding of the Fishery to almost total Federal control.” I've said some figures and I hope my memory serves me well. When we look at the fishery being a $1-billion industry – and I think $33 billion in the fishery goes towards the GDP of our country, Canada, and we're producing a little over $1 billion – then I would say that while it's good, many fishers and many people in the province would say it's not good enough. We ought to be doing far better than we are doing.

The principle of adjacency: When we had the Estimates, Mr. Chair, I mentioned to the minister at the time that I would hope that he champions the principle of adjacency. Adjacency would indicate – much the same as when John Crosbie and the government of the time championed adjacency and we saw the benefit of the Atlantic Accord, where we became the primary beneficiaries of our oil resources – something similar to that in relation to the fishery.

I know the terms of agreement that we had in '49; I know that's a tough journey ahead, but we have to attempt to make sure that we have a bigger voice in our fishery than what we currently have. My understanding from talking to some people and trying to get up to speed on the fishery so I can come here and try to talk something that would make some semblance of sense in the House is from the learned people who had stated that the fishery, back when the ground fishery was on, in the 200-mile limit, they thought that Canada generally, before the collapse of the fishery, followed the historical dependence. They looked at the adjacency; they looked at the economic viability and we had the majority of the share within the 200-mile limit of the groundfish stock.

Then, of course, came the collapse of the stock. Then in the mid-'90s came the shellfish industry – the very lucrative shellfish industry. From the people I spoke with, from that point in time on we've seen an erosion of the adjacency of the principle of historical dependence and we find now that larger portions of the quota that would be inside our 200-mile limit are going to other provinces of Canada.

I would say to you we are a very sharing type in Newfoundland and Labrador but I would say, at what cost, Mr. Chair? We are a very sharing group, but at what cost do we continue to know that we can't go into other jurisdictions in Canada and fish within their waters, but they can certainly come here to Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not totally opposed to it, but I've since asked DFO to send and release and provide for me the figures of relation to the allocation of quotas within our 200-mile limit.

I would say to you when we get that, the data will show, if the experts that I talk with are correct, that we're seeing a diminishing return on our allocation and what the total allowable catch would be in our 200-mile limit. The minister may be able to speak to that at some point in time in the near future as well because he may have access to that data. Keep in mind, I haven't asked the provincial body, which I probably ought to have; I've gone through DFO to make that request to see where the allocation of the figures would be.

What are the some of the differences with other jurisdictions? I stated with the seals and I said I wasn't going to talk about seals tonight, and I'm not, but I look at other jurisdictions that we have. In 2020 all of Newfoundland had a 12,000-metric-tons quota of cod – 12,000. That's not a lot of cod that we harvest and move. Keep in mind that in other jurisdictions, like Norway and Denmark, they are significantly, significantly more than that. In fact, they're between 150,000 to 200,000 metric tons. Their cod industry and fishery are doing well.

In a world where we have global warming and we know that we're struggling with those elements, we find that other jurisdictions are striving while we're losing our resource. Keep in mind – I'm just going to slip in one thing about seals – remember that in six days they eat the total amount of what we harvest in our waters, 200,000 metric tons.

One would say, we've sat in this House of Assembly, the 50th House of Assembly, haven't heard one word in relation to the urgency that we must have to save our stock. Iceland, 200,000 metric tons, with warming of waters, climate change – 200,000 metric tons. One figure which I had, which I think is emblematic of where we are, we've discovered that we've got a market for mackerel, a new species – relatively new – that we have markets for. But let me share with you what our catch rate is and our quota for mackerel. I'd like for everybody to remain seated, because our quota for mackerel is 4,000 metric tons – 4,000 metric tons. But I hear somebody singing out –

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

C. PARDY: Four thousand metric tons.

I hear somebody asking, well, what does Iceland – what are their metric tons? What is their catch rate? I just happen to have the answer for that: 400,000 metric tons.

The minister had stated that his background is the fishery, that he's from a fishing community. The minister says: Come join me. Speak about it any time on the floor of the House of Assembly; join him in his effort. I'd like to join him. All he needs to do is just invite us and say: Join me and let's tackle it together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly delighted this evening to have my first opportunity to speak to this bill. Of course, this being a money bill, we kind of have the flexibility to speak about whatever we want. There are a lot of subjects I could cover and a lot that I probably will cover before the night is out.

I just want to talk specifically to the budget, which is good, I guess, seeing as how this is a budget bill; this is Supply, basically allowing government now to be able to actually pay the bills.

I just want to, first of all, say as it relates to the budget, I said from day one when I was elected as an independent Member – even the last time when I was – I said I committed to myself I would do my best to respect decorum; to not be partisan or political in my comments, as best as I possibly could; and to attempt to be the voice of my constituents; and to be fair and reasonable and balanced in my approach, in times supporting government, in times not supporting government. I think the votes will show that since I've been an independent, there have been times where I've voted with the government, been times when I voted with the Official Opposition, times I voted with the Third Party, because I'm just trying to make decisions based on what I feel is right and what is in the best interest of my constituents.

On this particular budget vote – I just want to be sort of clear on that one – what I could have done – and you've been around long enough; you see how things work. The reality of it is that the government has a majority. I could have easily voted against the budget knowing that the budget would go through anyway; we wouldn't topple the government. Then if anyone came to me and said, B'y, that's shocking about what they're planning on doing for MUN, I could say: Well, I didn't vote for the budget. They could say that's shocking about the taxes on whatever; I didn't vote for the budget. That's shocking what they're doing on sugary drinks; well, I didn't vote for the budget. I could have taken that approach.

I could basically let the budget pass, but then vote against it anyways so anyone who had a complaint about the budget, I'd be able to say I didn't support it. But that's not the approach I'm going to take. It's not the approach I took, because ultimately I don't see any major issues, personally, with the budget.

Are there some details lacking in the Budget Speech itself? Yes, without question. There are a lot of things in that Budget Speech that talked about this transformation that the details are not there. By and large, none of those things are actually in the budget in terms of an actual budget item to vote on.

The budget is kind of a stay the course. There are no major tax hikes, so to speak. There are some there and no one likes any taxes, of course, but there's nothing off-the-wall major. In terms of reduction in services and so on, I don't see anything major there either. There are no massive layoffs or anything like that.

I think the Leader of the Official Opposition even said that from that point of view, keeping the economy going and not shocking the economy and not being drastic, he acknowledged that himself that he agreed with that. I agree with it, as well.

I didn't see any major things there that I would not support the budget, but I would agree with anyone over here who perhaps didn't support the budget who would say the details are the issue. No details in what the plans are. Well, I said from day one that as these – quote, unquote – transformations occur and we start looking into this and looking into that and looking into something else, then I will make my views loud and clear at the time on a case-by-case basis depending on what is done and how it was done and, of course, the details around it.

We know there are going to be things that have to be done. That's the other reality. It would be hypocritical to be here on the one hand saying spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, and we need more money for this, more money for that and more money for something else, and then by the same token to say: Oh, my God, we have to borrow $1.7 billion this year, to add to our already crippling debt. We didn't need Dame Moya Greene to tell us any of this. The Auditor General has been telling us this for years. We didn't need the Auditor General to tell us. Common sense, sure. You can see how the debt is climbing. We have a population of a half million people, 516,000 or 520,000 or whatever it is, somewhere in that neighbourhood. We're up to our necks in debt. So, yes, something has to change.

Now, this budget, one would argue – and I've heard from a lot of people who said: My God, the government is not doing anything to tackle the debt in this particular budget; they've cut literally nothing. They've talked about doing this and doing that, but they haven't done a whole lot. I've gotten that comment from a lot of people, actually. I just want to be clear: That's why I support the budget. But I support it and I also support a lot of the proposals, if you will, the part of this transformation. I support a lot of those things, in principle, if they're done right. I look at the idea of the back-office functions of the four health care authorities.

Nobody here in this House with any – well, I shouldn't say with any common sense; that wouldn't fair, because people can have differing views for differing reasons. I think most people would recognize the fact that if you have four lots of people basically doing the same functions in four different locations, if you can bring them all together in theory, there's no reason why you can't create economies of scale and so on and you can't create efficiencies and save money while still doing what needs to be done. So when we look at that, it makes sense to me. Something has to give.

We look at Nalcor, and I know that I have my own personal issues with Nalcor. No secret. It has nothing to do with Nalcor or the people working there; it has to do with a handful of people who fed us all a bunch of lies. Anyway, that being as it may, it makes sense. The Muskrat Falls Project now is winding down. We have Nalcor, we have Hydro, we have OilCo and we have a core government department all looking after these assets. We don't need it all. I absolutely support the notion of dealing with that and finding efficiencies and saving money – absolutely.

Now, do I want to see people just tossed out onto the street? Of course I don't. You have to recognize these are human beings with families and so on. We can't just kick people to the curb. I would never support that. But if it is done in a methodical way and we utilize attrition and early retirement, or find positions for people in other core government departments so that everybody is looked after as best we can – minimize any damage that way, but still achieve that same goal of finding efficiencies and consolidating – absolutely I'm going to support that, 100 per cent.

I could go down through other things – the school board is another one. Again, I'd like to see how it is going to be done, how it is going to be organized; understand the facts and the figures, which we don't have. But if it can be done properly and still offering the same outcomes and what the needs are in our education system – again, not kicking employees to the curb; utilize attrition and early retirement and all that kind of stuff – I'm going to support that as well. We can't afford not to do it. The reality of it is we cannot afford not to do it. It has to be done.

I'll just finish off this particular time by saying in the 2016 budget, I was bombarded with emails, phone calls – you name it – from constituents. This time, guess how many calls and emails I got on this budget – nada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I got the standard one from NAPE, I got the standard one from the NLTA and I got all those from the Employers' Council, the same cut-and-paste emails. I got a few there the last couple of days, a couple about MUN students, but beyond that I got nothing really. I think maybe one or two people that have reached out to me in some way.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll –

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The chuckles are starting already, before I even start.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not done yet.

J. HOGAN: Yeah, we'll see. I made it this far last night.

I think it was the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port said he likes using quotes. A quote came to my mind tonight before I started speaking. It's déjà vu all over again here tonight.

It was nice last night, closer to the end of our session, for everybody to have a bit of a chuckle. I don't know if everyone was laughing at me or laughing with me. Either way, even if everyone was laughing at me, I'll take one for the team if everyone left here on a happy note last night. The sun was shining when we left. It was a good day in the House of Assembly overall after a lot of debate, Mr. Chair.

I did hear a couple of comments from the hon. Member for CBS last night; he was sort of shouting out some tips, I guess. I am still fairly new. I'm going to rely on the newbie excuse for a little while longer yet. I might not know all the rules of the House or the conventions of the House. I don't know if the hon. Member for CBS was heckling me or trying to help me.

B. PETTEN: Help you.

J. HOGAN: Trying to help me. There you go.

Anyone who is listening tonight, I think we proved a point that Members of the House of Assembly can get along when necessary. Thank you to the Member for CBS last night for trying to help me. I don't know if it worked but he tried. He tried.

Mr. Chair, as I was saying last night, I did want to talk a little bit about the Department of Justice and Public Safety. It is two branches the way I see it and what I've come to learn since my time in the department. Justice and access to justice is very important to me and to everyone in the department who works so hard.

I do want to thank everyone. Just broadly speaking I want to talk about how I think it reflects what the public thinks is the justice system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's our two branches of courts: the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, where there are courts throughout this province; and the provincial court as well, where we have courts, again, throughout the entire province. There are staff, judges and clerks in all the offices throughout the province who work very, very hard to service all the people and all the litigants that come through the court system in this province.

It's a very difficult job, Mr. Chair, and I learned that first-hand. I was very lucky and very fortunate, during my time as a private practicing lawyer in this province, to see first-hand those great staff that deal with all the issues that come before them. Obviously, we've talked a lot about COVID and how difficult it has been on all aspects of our lives. It did have a big impact on access to justice in this province and around the world.

I was a practicing lawyer when COVID hit. I'd say what people might refer to as small-firm lawyer's bread and butter would be real estate files, real estate transactions and wills. Anyone in here who has done a will or done a real estate file, anyone who owns a house I'm sure has done a real estate file. You do know that you have to meet with your lawyer, Mr. Chair, to sign the documents. You might not understand what the lawyer is saying, telling you all the risks about buying a house and the obligations of your mortgage and debts, et cetera, but you do have to meet the lawyer in person to sign it and have to witness it.

Obviously, when COVID hit in March, that wasn't possible anymore. So it was a real concern and it was a real worry for the lawyers who had to do the work, and for all the people who all of a sudden thought maybe I'm not going to be able to buy my house, I'm not going to be able to get my mortgage. Or even maybe more importantly, I'm not going to be able to sign my will and meet with my lawyer, which is obviously a very important thing for someone who's nearing the end of life and need that document. It's important to them, it's important to protect their family.

But we were lucky enough that the Department of Justice and the great staff here – and everyone in the House of Assembly – passed emergency legislation that allowed lawyers to meet with people not face to face. I can tell you that an industry that's probably as old as time, lawyers, it was a bit strange to get used to it. We were signing documents through video chat, we were doing it online, but it did work well and it's probably the way of the future.

Obviously, this is not the only industry that has had to face something like that, but we did adapt. I think all the lawyers in this province would thank the Department of Justice for that to ease access to justice, and thank all the Members of the House of Assembly – whoever was here at that point in time, because I think you weren't allowed to sit with a full House – who passed that emergency legislation.

It does show the power of this House of Assembly, that when push comes to shove, things can get done. I know the Member for Ferryland – I think it was today or yesterday – said, let's get going. I think we can get going when things need to be done. I think what this budget does show – and I know I'm here to talk about the budget today – is that the time has come for us to get going. Thankfully, everyone, at least, in Mount Pearl see it that way and see that this government is getting going. They obviously agree with the budget and that's good to hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I'm sure it's not only people in Mount Pearl that see what a fantastic budget the Minister of Finance put together. As the Leader of the Opposition did say earlier tonight, Members opposite might have some issues with it, but overall I think people are satisfied that it is a budget that's going to move us forward. There might be some issues here and there, and we can talk about and continue to debate over the next few years, but I think it is a strong budget. It does show a strong government willing to move forward and make changes.

Mr. Chair, some other groups I just want to say thank you to in the justice community include the Legal Aid lawyers. Hopefully, everyone in this House hasn't had to use a Legal Aid lawyer. I say that because people that need Legal Aid lawyers are those who don't have the financial ability to pay for their own lawyers.

Mr. Chair, I did speak to the executive director of the Legal Aid Commission in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has a concern that's probably everlasting for him. People view Legal Aid lawyers, for some reason – maybe because they're not paying out of their own pocket – as lesser lawyers. That's certainly not the case. These lawyers work day in, day out. They're public servants and they do a great job. They've gone to the same law schools that all private practice lawyers and big firm lawyers went to and they're as learned in the law as anyone, certainly, that I know and that I've come across.

I think it was this week in the House I made mention of a lawyer by the name of Derek Hogan, who was admitted to the American College of Trial Lawyers, and he's a legal aid lawyer, Mr. Chair. That's a very prestigious recognition and a very high distinction. For a legal aid lawyer to get it, I think what it does demonstrate is that these lawyers are there, as good as anyone else. If someone is in trouble and doesn't have the financial ability that's what the Legal Aid Commission is there for. I want to commend all of them for their hard work. I'm sure during the COVID pandemic – they deal mostly, Mr. Chair, with family law files and criminal files, and that's not easy to do when there's no pandemic going on, and to have to deal with all that during these difficult times, I commend all of them for their hard work and effort and to stick with it.

Another group that I want to say thanks to is the people that work at the Human Rights Commission. I guess, fortunately or unfortunately, we do have a Human Rights Commission. It's unfortunate that we do need this group in this province because there are human rights violations that I'm sure a lot of us don't see, but unfortunately we do know about and it happens every day. Fortunately, we do have this Human Rights Commission because we recognize that there are human rights in this country and they're important to all of us and they have to be respected.

If there is a violation of someone's human rights based on their race, religion or sexual orientation, all these things that aren't choices – this is who people are and everyone deserves to be treated equally – and if there is an issue with regard to a human rights violation, that's what the Human Rights Commission is there for: to deal with them and to sanction people appropriately who don't view human rights the way they should be viewed. I want to thank everyone who works at the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Chair, because they do very, very important work.

I also want to talk a little bit about the Public Safety part of my portfolio. When you think of public safety, obviously, it's something that you know in the background there are always people out there working very hard for us to keep us safe, but hopefully you don't ever have to hear the stories, because if you hear the stories, it usually means it's a bad news story. It's great that we know they're there; it's great if we don't hear any stories about them because it means they're doing their job and they're doing it well. Unfortunately, things do happen. Thankfully, we do have two strong police groups in this province, Mr. Chair. We have the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, who do a fantastic job, and we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who also work very hard throughout all areas of this province, and we're very lucky to have them.

One final group with regard to the Public Safety I'd like to thank are the firefighters. Being from St. John's my whole life, living around the corner from a fire department, I always thought everyone had their own fire department in their town or in their city, and clearly that's not the case. All the rural MHAs are probably looking at me now and shaking their heads. I have come to learn that volunteer firefighters are truly very, very important to the fabric of these communities and the safety of these communities.

I do want to thank each and every one of them for putting in the hard work and taking the time – time they could spend on doing other things, but they see the value in their community. They see how important these things are and they know someone has to do this very difficult job and they step up and do it. I want to thank each and every one of the individuals who see fit and see it necessary and are happy to do it on behalf of their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Mr. Chair, with that, coupled with the few minutes speaking last night, I think I have reached the end of my moment in the sun. So I appreciate speaking to this bill, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start off by echoing (inaudible) just did say and that is the lawyers at Legal Aid are some of the finest and they are well trained and some of them have gone on to be appointed judges in the system.

I guess it's a key point, too, to keep in mind that our public servants do a very good job, an excellent job under the restraints they have.

I was trying to figure out how I was going to frame what I wanted to say at this point, and my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands gave me the overarching theme about how when it came to the budget, if I heard him correctly, that he didn't hear from most people. He heard from, yes, the unions, the Employers' Council, you name it. I would argue, yes, we might, indeed, get it from the organization because the organizations – and when I was the president of the Teachers' Association, we had the opportunity to see and look at how the budget could potentially impact teachers. We would hear from teachers. It was our job to make sure that the issues that we were hearing were heard. Why do up a form letter? Because I can guarantee you that most people working at their jobs, by the time they are finished, they are pretty beat anyway. Their energies are directed just in front of them.

But why else didn't we hear from people? I'd say, for the most part, people are just too busy with life at this point in time, and not just because it is COVID-19. There are people who are – like when it comes to the taxes, they have the money; they're going to be comfortable. They'll deal with it.

There are those who are so vulnerable – part of our vulnerable population – you're not going to hear from them. They don't vote, a lot of them. Why? Because they probably feel they have nothing for which to vote. It's a pointless exercise. I don't know how many times I hear it – from more than one person knocking at the door: You're all crooks. All politicians are crooks. Didn't know me from Adam; nevertheless, I was now in to that. That was the first time I ran.

I look at the people who I've helped serve lunches to at the Ches Penney Centre of Hope. I can tell, you they're worried about where their next meal is coming from. Can they make it from there up to The Gathering Place?

The people who are out in street corners are probably looking for enough money either to take care of their habit or their next food. You don't know. They're struggling; they're vulnerable.

One of the things in the Estimates Committee meeting and this budget and in the Budget Speech we hear – listen to this: Balanced budget legislation to tighten controls of the public purse ensuring our government spends within its means. We have zero-based budgeting – a term I was introduced to when I was first elected – attrition, vacancies.

Here is the thing: I was trying to figure out why you need balanced budget legislation if you have zero-based budgeting. Seriously. If, as I understood from zero-based budgeting, it's about building up from what you need, we already should be trying to achieve balanced budget because we are only focusing on what we need. What do any of these terms mean to the person on the street – balanced budget legislation? No one knows until it affects them.

I don't know how many times things are changed with the Teachers' Association and the teachers would ask: Where did this come from? Oh, we voted on that last year. Here's what this is all about.

For the person who is struggling to survive, balanced budget legislation, reducing the debt by $10 million, what does that mean? Those are some of the questions that we've asked here in the House.

The Budget Speech talked about “solutions are needed to address long-standing structural issues such as the high cost of providing services to nearly 600 communities across a large” geographic area. What does that mean? I would say that many of us here would probably have a hard time talking about what are the structural issues. To the average person on the street, what does “structural issues” mean? Does this mean we're going to shut down communities? Does this mean that it's going to cost higher ferry fees to get there? Because in another part of the budget it talks about: “… joint solutions for a more effective way to maintain and improve the delivery of ferry service, taking into consideration the perspectives of the people who use it.” What does that mean?

Now, every profession has its jargon. Education does, too. We can talk in jargon to the point where I can tell you what it does: it excludes people from the conversation. All you have to do is read a will or any legal document and you'll see that in just trying to figure that out, it will boggle the mind.

So, yes, we're not necessarily going to hear from a lot of people, because think about it, that's the speech. I have the Estimates book there that we sit down and go through, and think about the amount of labour that goes into going through Estimates here. If we're expecting the ordinary individual, the person on the street, to go through this and then expect a phone call – I'm waiting for the day when someone calls me and says: I've gone through the Budget Speech, the budget documents and the book The Economy and I'd like to ask a few questions. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. But –

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your number?

J. DINN: You know my number; call me. I'll expect questions tomorrow. I'll pass you on to someone who knows what they're talking about.

The point, regardless of this, is that it's going to affect the lives of many people.

We talk about poverty reduction and there are things to be commended in this budget. I look at the money that's being put into housing, the Rent Supplement Program and the low-income homeowner modifications, but in the end we still have some issues. There are people who are just trying to survive.

We've asked for here a $15 minimum wage. We've asked for a guaranteed basic income pilot project, which was unanimously passed by this House with some modifications. We've got to do more because I can tell you that the people in my district are not going to benefit – not all. A lot of people in my district are not going to see the benefit of a 20-cent sugar-sweetened tax. It's not going to make the carton of milk any more affordable. I applaud the $1 million towards Kids Eat Smart, but in the end it's like the organizations I have been a part of, like St. Vincent de Paul, it's a charity and it's not going to solve the issue for them.

A three-cent increase per cigarette. Those who can afford it are going to pay it; those who can't – and I can think of several – they're already getting the contraband cigarettes. Why? It's not going to solve the underlying problem because a lot of the people I've dealt with they're dealing with an enormous amount – sometimes that cigarette is the only thing getting them through the day. I can afford to go up to the river and go fishing or whatever else, I have other outlets, but for some people this is what's getting them through the day.

Go down to a kitchen sometime and you'll see them, five or six packs of sugar in a coffee and I'm amazed by it. I don't use sugar anymore. But at the same time, why? It's that boost that's getting them through the day. So sometimes we've got to bring ourselves down to the level of the people – believe it or not – who are not tuning into the House of Assembly broadcast. They probably don't know what a budget is, a main motion, Estimates or anything is about.

I'm glad we have a few more money bills to talk about and I'll bring up other issues. Not tonight. I'm going to parse out my wisdom over the next few days, such as it is. I think, if nothing else, we take away from the fact, at the end of it, this budget, despite its language, is going to have a very real effect on some very vulnerable people and we've got to take that into consideration. Just because they don't call in, doesn't mean they don't care.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have a few words here tonight also. As my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands mentioned, we voted for the budget and, as we said, there are not a lot of details in the budget and we will hold government accountable to follow up on their commitments that they made within the budget.

Before I get into that, Mr. Chair, I just want to recognize the Town of McIvers, and it's a town out in the Bay of Islands, the second-farthest town out on the North Shore. Today is their 50th anniversary of being incorporated and I just have to recognize all the volunteers, the town council, the fire departments, the church groups, the recreation groups and the many other groups in the Town of McIvers that made that town so special and to become so prosperous. It's a great town. They had Chase the Ace and they raised almost a million dollars for water improvements in the town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: One of the people I dealt with on a regular basis in the town was the mayor for many years and on the council, a person by the name of Warren Blanchard, and he was also on the North Shore development association for a number of years. Warren was a tireless worker for the town and for the whole North Shore. He put a lot of time, energy and effort into making sure that his town is prosperous, and so did all the other councillors, but as the mayor you usually deal with the mayor in the town. Bernice was there for a number of years also. I just have to recognize the work of Warren, the council and all the volunteers in the town that made McIvers such a great town. A very prosperous town, a very tidy town and a lot of great homes are after being built there recently. Water and sewer is after being improved.

So, Mr. Chair, to the town's current mayor, council and all the groups, congratulations on 50 years of being incorporated. To all of them, great working with you. Sometimes we had discussions on how to get things moving forward. We didn't agree on how we should get it forward, but we always found a way to get it forward to the Town of McIvers.

Mr. Chair, I'm just going to have a few more words. I mentioned earlier in one of the speeches that I had and we'll just wait for the next budget just to see – and I'll give you a good example. As I mentioned earlier, there are 16 Cabinet ministers, 16 people in the Cabinet now. Extremely large. I just want to look back in 2016, and it was brought up a couple of times here today, when we decreased the size of the Cabinet and had a much, much smaller Cabinet. I'll just give you an example. I'm saying to government now, for me, personally, you're on notice that I will be watching, I will be noticing. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because there's not a lot of information in the budget to vote against it. But to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Just to give you an example. The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs now, just that alone, right now the Building Canada Fund is out of it, engineering is out of it and the MMSB is not in there. It's a much smaller department. I look at Women and Gender Equality also, that was always a division in another part. Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs, again, I'm not saying they're not important departments, but that was put together after the fiasco with Dwight Ball and not getting the capping done in – so that was all put in there, but it was always a division before. So when you start splitting off divisions and making more Cabinet positions and then you turn around and say: Everybody else, you have to tighten your belts, but we don't have to because politically we need to spread it out a bit, carve a bit off here and put it in here. When you look at some of the larger departments – Health, Education, Transportation and Infrastructure and Justice, some of the larger departments, the amount of people that they have there.

I'm not saying the department shouldn't be standing alone; I'm just saying when you increase the Cabinet and you shave bits and pieces off here and there so you can say we have this part done, we have that gender equity done, we have the geography done and we have the representation across the province done and then you're asking the people of this province to tighten their belts, it's a tough one. It's definitely a tough one. I'm not justifying or saying that these departments shouldn't stand alone, there was never a justification; I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but I'm just explaining what I'm hearing out there in the general public. I've seen it here before. That is an issue that I will keep government accountable for.

Mr. Chair, when you look at the budget and you look at some of the possibilities – as we mentioned, the school boards. Now, we're going to bring the school boards into core government. We don't know how much we're going to save by bringing the school boards in and we don't know what the services are going to be like. I'm sure if there was an analysis done already, it should be presented in this House of Assembly. I don't know if there was. If there was, it should have been presented in this House of Assembly so we can evaluate it. This is the first step of saying believe me. There are other parts to it; other decisions that were made where they were saying believe me. Mr. Chair, I know I'm speaking for myself: We'll believe you this year.

I have no problem if we're going to make the tough decisions. I heard the Leader of the Opposition state it today and I know my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands said that everybody that's here is willing to help out – everybody. I can tell you, I know the people associate me with the Liberals and some people get upset if I go against this or that, but all my discussions over here with the Opposition and also with the independents – everybody is willing to chip in. Don't be afraid to ask and give ideas. Don't be afraid. I've yet to hear on this side something saying we will not try to help government – I haven't heard it.

I'll go back to a good example, Mr. Chair. I'll look at the Kruger mill. There's one person in this House that him and me were worse than cats and dogs: Jerome Kennedy. We had some good come-tos in this House. We did. We always met behind that screen and worked it out though – we always did.

I remember the Kruger mill and the pension plan. Jerome Kennedy came across the floor and asked me to help out because I had a good rapport with all the unions. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, Jerome Kennedy at the time gave me a lot of personal information and he had my commitment that I would work with him on it. I know we asked the question, the status, we walked over and gave him the questions and said, look, here's what we're going to ask. Thanks, not a problem. I remember a minister said something in Corner Brook, which was different from what Jerome Kennedy and me were working on. Jerome Kennedy walked down to that person and he chewed that person out.

We did get the pension straightened up. My point to the story is don't be afraid to reach out to people that have expertise on this side. There are people – and I'm a prime example of it; I did it on several occasions when I was in Opposition – here with expertise in different parts. Don't be scared. Don't think that it's a sign of weakness if you have to reach out to someone over here who may have a bit more expertise in a field. Be trustworthy on it.

I know when I was in Opposition there were many times that I sat down – and another one was Tom Marshall. The reason why I'm saying this is the collaboration you can see is just not there. I'll use Tom Marshall and we'll go to the hospital in Corner Brook. Tom Marshall, to this credit, was in with the government and they weren't going to do the radiation. Tom Marshall took over as premier. I used to go behind the screen and ask questions in the House of Assembly – Dwight Ball and myself, I give him credit also – and then we'd be shot down. We called Tom Marshall behind the scenes and said here are the facts.

This day when I asked a question in the House of Assembly, Tom Marshall said whatever the answer was to a question. I called him aside. I gave Tom Marshall two names. It was a director of radiation in PEI and a director of radiation in Cape Breton. Tom Marshall, as premier of this province, on a Saturday and a Sunday morning phoned those two people and asked those two people can a radiation unit work? They said, yes, Mr. Premier. They were shocked, first of all. Tom Marshall came back and put $500,000 in the budget for a study for radiation in Corner Brook. That's how collaboration can work.

I see my time – I'll be back again, but that's my point, how collaboration can work. I'm sure there are people on this side of the House who are willing to collaborate to make this province even better.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

I wasn't expecting that. I thought you were going back there, so no problem.

There are so many subjects from listening to people do all their speaking on their districts and remind you of some stuff in your own district. Yesterday, with the Terra Nova news, I had a lot of people in my district that were certainly affected. I wanted to be able to go on record and speak on that as well, because I didn't get an opportunity yesterday in the three hours we had here on debate. I have a lot of constituents that are affected by that. There are some constituents that are rotational workers now and others that are laid off.

I'll use the example of the marine base in Bay Bulls, as a spinoff, I'm going to call it, from the Terra Nova FPSO. I don't know if they got work from that, but I know that I have a relative that works down there, my brother. They're not as busy as they were two years ago. Exactly in the oil industry – I don't know as much as my Member for Terra Nova about it, for sure; he's pretty adept on it. You do notice that chain coming to the wharf and piping and all kinds of stuff. The seismic vessel was in Bay Bulls only last week, so it does affect the area and the people that are there.

They're down on work. They're still working a couple of times a week or once every couple of weeks. If there are ships in, they're there for however long the ship is in, but it certainly does affect. That's just in Bay Bulls. There's another proposed marine terminal in Fermeuse and all the other people that are tied to this unit and the spinoffs. It's very important that hopefully we can get this back on track and get that working. I certainly support those workers and would love to see that come back. Certainly, in our town as well, it's very important for the town.

Another opinion on that, I'm going to say, we're talking about going green. I don't think oil is going away. That's my opinion. We look at all the vehicles that we have here now. Yes, they're going electric, but that's not going to happen in the next five to 10 years. So we still have to keep plugging away, drive this industry more.

Just think about all the little things that people think about. What are you going to do with lawn mowers, Whippersnippers and ATVs? I only saw it on the news probably a month ago or two months ago talking about electric airplanes. Now, technology is not there yet, and do you trust that? You're talking about airplanes and jet propulsion and all that. It's a long ways away.

We really have to push it, I think. It's more than 50 years away. We'll be gone and our kids and our grandkids will still be with oil, as far as I'm concerned. Now, do we have to change and look at other things? For sure. Absolutely, we have to go green. We made a step for sure when we talk about Muskrat Falls, but it is a step that eventually is going to payoff. Right now it doesn't look that way, but I think it really will.

That's the same question I asked when they did consultations at the hotel when they were doing some stuff. I spoke to one of the ministers at the time and said to him: In 30 or 40 years, will this be good? Yes, this will be a great project at that point in time. Same as when we get back Churchill Falls. Let's keep going on our oil and gas.

The one thing I would say – when it all happened yesterday, it came down pretty quick when we were all going in the House and not getting a chance – well, we got a chance to go out on the step but not to get there to represent our constituents and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If this happened in Quebec, I just wonder how it would turn out. That would be my only statement on that. Alberta, they lost their pipeline. You just have to wonder how this would all turn out for us if it was – based on equalization, if this was happening in Quebec I just wonder how this would turn out. That would just be my comment on that and I won't dig any deeper into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: I did see in the budget – and I'll touch on a couple of budget things. To the minister that was speaking earlier there, the Justice Minister, when you got up to speak. When I first got here, it was 20 minutes, and I said: How am I going to speak for 20 minutes? How is that going to happen? I remember getting up speaking; I was 11 minutes in, and I finished in 11 minutes. Now, I have notes here and I don't know if I will get it in for every budget item that's here that you're going to get to speak on. It is funny how things change and you sit down and you listen to what happens.

Also, speaking with our colleague from Bonavista, I said I'll probably touch on it a little bit. He was talking about seals, the fishery and the budget. When I was young, I will say – I'm not very old but when I was young, you'd never see a seal on your beach way. When you go to Chance Cove park right now, you go down to park, you go down to the beach you see seals out bobbing around.

Where else was I to? I was up in Trepassey. There was a post today in Witless Bay; there was a seal up on the beach. That never happened when we were young; you never saw a seal. If you did, they didn't live to get back in the water most times because somebody got them. That's just the way it was. If there was an opportunity there for somebody to have some seal on their own, then they went and done it. With the regulations today, you wouldn't get away with it but that happened.

With the budget, speaking on the fishery and the seals, as the Member for Bonavista has said – when I was young, I wasn't a fisherman by no stretch of the imagination; my dad was and so many people in the community. You stand up on what we call the cliff and they come up over the hill – and I was only 16; I fished for a couple of years with him and never got paid. I was out fishing but not paid. You come up on the hill and the fishermen would gather there on the side of the road, foot up on the guardrail and they'd be talking about no fish today. Next week, there would be all kinds of fish.

I always thought after the fishery closed – and that happened, and I said that before, closed on my birthday on July 2, '92. It was a pretty big devastation. Talking about those seals, we really have to get to that point to be able to cultivate them and make that market something that's viable around here.

To get back to the fishing story – I can remember a time we went out fishing on a Saturday. Anyone who is from rural Newfoundland would know when you go out fishing, on Saturday evenings, the fish plants would only take 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of fish. You had to go out and haul a trap that would be full and you'd take in 7,000 or 8,000 you knew they were going to take it; they were not going to throw it away. At the time in the community I was in – every community had a fish plant along the Southern Shore.

When we take in the fish on Saturday evening, you'd take so much and you'd go out on Monday morning after a trap had been full – I remember we went out and we hauled a trap that was full, more than 30,000 pounds of fish and the boat couldn't take it. They'd bag it up and they'd go out again that evening and take some more out of it to bring it on a Saturday. They let it all go and, on Monday morning, you'd go out to go haul the trap, there wasn't a fish to be seen. They'd cook fish stew every morning and they had to go to another boat to get a fish to have a fish stew. That's how it changed.

I really think, again going back to it, that the foreign countries coming in here taking our fish and not being accountable for it and we're letting it happen, that's a big issue. I agree with the minister; it's something that we should make a stand on. I know that they did years ago, but they're still there fishing, in my mind. It's something that should be looked at.

Again, in our budget, there wasn't a whole lot mentioned. That was one of the things that when somebody spoke on it I said: Well, I'd like to touch on it. I mean, when I was young, Portuguese boats would come into Bay Bulls and tie up on the wharf and take all the salt fish that we processed in the plant. That's what happened. That's only 35, 40 years ago. It's something that happened on a regular basis and there was a good market for it at the time. Those boats, they didn't just fish offshore; they came right into the wharf and we supplied them with the fish.

With that being said, I really think that's something we should look at as a government and push for. I'm not here to cut up any ministers in no way, shape or form, but that's something that I really think we should have a hard look at.

Again, with the opening of the tourism coming up now in June – I think it's June 23 when it starts to open. I'm glad to see that in the whole district from Petty Harbour right up to St. Shott's. It's a big district. Tourism is very big, boat tours, Colony of Avalon opened this week. Mistaken Point is going to be open. The Trepassey hotel, all the Airbnbs that are there. All the little places that they can stay, bed and breakfasts. It's very important. It's a big industry in the District of Ferryland, and it's very encouraging to see that come open and hopefully we can get back to normal.

I will touch on the Minister of Justice saying that, you know, the Legal Aid lawyers – my daughter just graduated from Leicester, so she's going to be a Legal Aid lawyer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: I'm a bit of a softy, so I'm trying to get it out. I think it's the third time I thought about it and I couldn't get it out. Yeah, so she graduated this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: It's a pretty proud moment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always an honour. I won't take the full 10 minutes tonight, but I'd be remiss today if I didn't talk about some important events that have happened and that I want to bring to attention to.

In particular, we heard in the news, of course, about the Pride flags being stolen from schools; those are public properties. Of course, education institutions for our young people, our most valued resource in this province, and we saw those flags stolen, trampled on and burned. I want to recognize that and I want to, of course, give my sympathies. But that said, I also want to call it out, Mr. Chair, because if we don't call out bad behaviour when we see it or when we hear it, in my opinion, it's the same as endorsing it.

I also want to commend the hon. Member for Ferryland. He's a gentleman and he always talks with class when he speaks in this House of Assembly, and there are many people in this House of Assembly who use class when they speak. That's important because we're all here and we're all speaking on behalf of the people who we represent and who elect us to be here in these 40 seats. Again, just look around the House of Assembly and how many are occupied by women, Mr. Chair, we are very well in the minority.

We are discussing the budget and, of course, money bills and the finances pertaining to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's important to take criticism and to debate because that's what it's all about. But, Mr. Chair, what I say, I respect good, respectful debate. That's what counts, that's what people hear and that's what is credible, in my opinion.

At this time I do want to say, again, I am disheartened and disappointed to hear an hon. Member stand in this House tonight – one thing, criticizing a size of a Cabinet is just, and that's fine to do. But the Member who criticized the size of this Cabinet, the increase in the size of the Cabinet, I want to first of all draw your attention; there are more women in this Cabinet. There's an increase in women around that table, at the Cabinet table, from three to five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: We all know there are not a lot of women in this hon. House and we always ask why we don't get more women in politics. Well, I would say, Mr. Chair, and I would ask all Members, and I challenge you all to ask yourself, do you think it's because we hear criticisms that are geared and targeted at women?

The hon. Member for Humber - Bay of Islands just spoke and criticized the size of Cabinet, which is fine and which is just, but I noticed he didn't criticize the Minister for Transportation and Infrastructure, he didn't criticize the Minister for Justice and Public Safety, but instead he criticized three portfolios, Mr. Chair. He criticized the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member on a point of order.

E. JOYCE: At no time, Mr. Chair –

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing Order, please.

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing Order.

E. JOYCE: Forty-nine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Who said that?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Member to come on with his point of order.

E. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, at no time did I criticize; what I was talking about was the size of the departments. My point was, Mr. Chair, at no time did I criticize, I even said I'm not even criticizing the need but could you add something to it because of the size of the Cabinet to make the Cabinet smaller in these lean times. So get it straight what I said.

CHAIR: There is no point of order, just an honourable disagreement between the Members.

Thank you.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it is fair to criticize and to ask questions because that is the process, that's the beauty of democracy that we have and that we get to live privileges daily in this country and in this province, Mr. Chair. But I am sorry, I just find it hard – it is just very disheartening and sickening to see – fine, criticize the size of the Cabinet but don't just pick on the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and talk about how it is diminished and its importance is diminished and how there is a woman minister. A women I am very proud of, Mr. Chair, my colleague, the first female mayor, I might add, of St. Anthony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: Also, myself, I am very honoured and privileged to be the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, which is a standalone portfolio which this Premier saw fit to create. Is anyone in disagreement that the issues facing women, the 2SLGBTQIA+ and marginalized groups don't need more support than what they have? Is anyone disagreeing with that?

Of course, the minister and the Department for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, we just saw the reports come from the leader of our country about the supports that are needed and the results and the call for action for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I just want to draw that point, if you will. No male ministers or departments were criticized, yet the three that are held very important portfolios that were held by women were criticized.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, being the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality I cannot stand by and just accept this kind of debate. Be professional, bring the facts and have class. We should all have class, Mr. Chair.

I didn't plan on speaking tonight, but I'm no better if I just stand by and say nothing. If this is an hon. House, I ask that we all keep in mind that we are here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's keep our debates professional and classy and with the facts.

That's it for me right now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to get into any debate with the minister, but if you look at my speech in totality I did mention the size of the Cabinet of Transportation and Infrastructure, the size of his department. I mentioned Education. I mentioned Justice. My whole point was that in a government in lean times, if you're going to expand your Cabinet, carve off places to make extra Cabinet positions and ask people in this province to tighten their belts, the government should show some kind of leadership. That was my point.

Did I ever question any of her ability? I seen the Minister Responsible for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs handle two departments at once – two departments. Mr. Chair, at no time did I question anybody's ability or their gender. I'm just talking about what departments and the size of certain departments compared to other departments, Mr. Chair.

If I can't stand in this House and happen to point out that there are departments in some fields, I'm only doing it, I pointed out six or seven and someone says, well, there are three here that are women ministers. Well, I guess I'm not allowed to speak in this House of Assembly. If anybody out there ever thinks that it's just me who is thinking that this Cabinet up to 16 is large. Why there is some with just – I use Transportation and Infrastructure, I always said it's too big of a division. Education is another one. I always said that. It's just so huge.

If I can't point out the smaller departments, Mr. Chair; I never mentioned the Minister of Service NL because she has a large department. I'm just talking about government in general. If people wants to take that personal that's not my problem, but there is no time when it's a reflection on those departments.

I've seen on many occasions, Mr. Chair, during lean times that there were departments, Mr. Chair, that had two and three different portfolios that are here now.

If you want to stand up now and criticize me for bringing something up, and this is the budget time to bring it up, and say to the Premier: If you want to show restraint, make a smaller Cabinet. But if people want to think that I'm just going to back down because I point out a few Cabinet sizes and how it increased so much, Mr. Chair, they're not going to keep me quiet; not going to happen.

If I'm here as an independent and you think that I'm not allowed to speak – and I just want to say to the minister for the Status of Women: You think that I'm to the point where I'm pointing at women. I ask the Minister of Service NL: Do I give you the questions beforehand in this House? I do. I don't try to embarrass anybody. I did it to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Do I give you the questions beforehand? I do. The reason why, Mr. Chair, is I want answers. I'm not trying to embarrass anybody. I want results; I want answers. I don't know if there's a minister over there that I never gave the question to before, because I want an – the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I gave her the question.

This idea that I'm just out here now and the minister for the Status of Women thinks she can stand up and say I'm signalling out women. It's absolutely false. I know your personal vendetta against myself and Dale, I know that, but let me tell you something: I will not back down. If I have something to say in this House, I'm going to say it. I say to all my colleagues in this House of Assembly, everybody in this House of Assembly, if I have a concern about a budget, if I'm going to raise something about the budget, I'm raising it.

I say to the Premier: If the budget is going to increase in size and you're asking people to tighten their belts, which we're going to have to do, which I'm going to be a part of and going to be asked to do, it's fair for me to point that out because it is brought to my attention across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is it right? That's the Premier's decision; that's his prerogative. But is it right for me not to point that out? Is it right that I should sit down now and not point those things out? Mr. Chair, that is where, all of a sudden, now you can't say anything, you have to hand back. I will not do it, Mr. Chair. I will continue to speak as I always found and if I have to raise concerns in this House of Assembly, I will raise concerns in this House of Assembly. I will not and I refuse to – the concerns that are brought to me by the constituents that I represent.

I'll just ask the minister for the Status of Women: I was out to a function this weekend, a great function out in Corner Brook. My family is Aboriginal and my wife's family is Aboriginal. What if I stood up in this House today and said I was singled out and I was never, ever mentioned by anybody? What if the Member for Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs was sitting at a function and the Premier was there and wouldn't recognize her in front of a bunch of Aboriginals? She's Aboriginal. Should I stand up and say: Oh, I'm being prejudice because I'm Aboriginal, my family is Aboriginal? No, you shouldn't be.

Any time you want to just go out and do that, then jump up and say, oh, I'm Aboriginal and didn't recognize me because my family is Aboriginal or my wife's family is Aboriginal, it's wrong. That's their right if they want to recognize somebody or not. But you can't keep on, because someone raises a point, think that it's so personal and try to get people to stop talking about it. You just can't do that. Anyway, I'll come back to that later, Mr. Chair.

I just want, again, to talk about the district of Humber Arm South, as I did before. In the Town of Humber Arm South they have a tourism plan, $10 million. Mr. Chair, a $10-million tourism plan that they have. Hopefully, that's going to improve the whole South Shore of the Bay of Islands. I have to recognize the mayor, Eric Bourgeois, town council and the federal government for helping with the funding for that.

I know a lot of people here don't understand the District of Humber - Bay of Islands; the largest point in Newfoundland and Labrador is Lewis Hills. I should say Newfoundland, not Labrador. Mr. Chair, Lewis Hills has this minimal on top. It's part of the old Appalachian Trail, all along. It's a great tourism area, Mr. Chair. It's a great potential that the people of Humber Arm South are endeavoring on. I'm confident that we'll get the money from the federal government, provincial government and the towns on the South Shore to help out with this here, which will create employment.

Another thing that they say that's going to be great for them is cellphone coverage, to get in the backcountry. A lot of tourists won't go in the areas where if anything happens they can't get hold to 911 or somebody to help them out. That's going to expand a lot of tourism in the Humber - Bay of Islands area. I know in Lark Harbour, York Harbour, I know the Minister of Environment was a part of it that got the funding for that. That was a big boost for that area and for tourism and for business opportunities also and for tourism opportunities in the area.

There are improvements. There are definitely improvements. Again, our role as MHAs is to try to work with the governments, work with the town councils to improve the situation all throughout our districts. I don't think any of us here should be criticized for that. I know we'll hear it from the government every now and then that when you ask for something, you say: Well, you're saying cut the budget, but you want this. That's normal. That's the political banter back and forth. I have no problem with that whatsoever, Mr. Chair. I expect it and I understand it. That's the banter coming back and forth. I have no problem with that.

But it's our role, all MHAs, not just on the Opposition side or the independents or the Third Party, and also on the government, to lobby government to help out their constituents that they were elected for, Mr. Chair.

I see my time is short. I'll have another opportunity to have another few words later.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had a couple of things I wanted to say, and then I'll be done on this bill. I'll pick up on the next bill, I guess.

Anyway, first of all, Mr. Chair, I do want to say – and I don't want to make any heads swell or anything. I meant to say it the last time, actually. But I do want to commend the Leader of the Official Opposition. I've listened to him since he's taken over in that role and I listened to him today in his speech. The approach that he has taken is what was desperately needed in the last session, I will say. I have to give credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: And he is a good speller.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, the other thing I just want to pick up on: When I spoke last time, I referenced the fact, in the end, before I ran out of time – that's the difficulty, of course, when you only have 10 minutes at a time – that I didn't get a lot of calls. I got basically no calls other than I got a bunch of form emails from special interest groups.

Now, that's not to diminish it. We have NAPE employees who are obviously worried about their futures, worried about their jobs. I get the – and by the way, I answered every single email. Now, maybe they're all going back to Jerry Earle and the other ones were all going to Richard Alexander and the other ones were all going to Dean Ingram. I don't know, but I answered every single one of them. I understand that they have their concerns.

The Employers' Council obviously are saying we need to grapple with our crippling debt and I do agree with him. But public employees, whether they be teachers or other public employees, are concerned about their well-being and that of their family and what their future will hold and I can't knock them for that. I have a lot of public sector workers in my district. I just want to make that point.

I would also say that I also understand that my district, from a demographic point of view, is quite different from my colleague in St. John's Centre. I get that. I don't have near the amount of low-income – I don't know if I have any low-income housing. I have some co-op housing, a few Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but not very much. Most of my district is middle-income, high middle-income working families, generally. I get that.

I also understand and I agree with him on the point that the average citizen is busy with their lives and they're not going to go and scrutinize the budget and read it from cover to cover and start calling and asking questions. I get that as well. The point I was just trying to make is, as an example, if there is anything that is totally egregious to the public, something that is really a major concern, you're going to hear about it.

2016 budget comes to mine. My phone, my email, my Facebook; I couldn't go to Sobeys or Dominion or anywhere in the community. Coffee shop or Tim Hortons, you were hearing it everywhere. I can remember after Bill 29. At that time, I was getting it with both barrels. I guess my point is that if this budget was so egregious and people were so upset about it and so concerned and so worried, I think I would have heard more feedback from constituents up at Tim Hortons, up at Sobeys. I would have had a bunch of emails, a few calls or whatever. I'm just saying I'm not hearing that in my district. Maybe other Members are in their district; I'm not hearing it, not in any major way.

Are there some people who are obviously concerned about MUN and tuition fees? Absolutely. If you work for Nalcor, are you concerned about your future? Of course you are. If you are working for the health care corporation and you're in one of the back-office positions, are you concerned? Of course you are. If you are an employee of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, are you concerned? Of course you are. If you work at Motor Registration, are you concerned? Of course you are. But we don't know at this point in time how these things are going to be done, how they're going to pan out, what decisions are going to be made and how they're going to be made.

As I said, when the time comes to deal with these issues on an individual basis – because some of these things might not happen this year or next. They might be two or three years out, some of these things, and some of them may never happen. When the time comes – as my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands said – I'll be there. I'll be there, I'll ask questions and I will challenge things, if necessary, and I'll support things, if necessary.

In terms of this particular budget right now, this particular document right now – and we can use MUN as an example. In the Budget Speech you're talking about next year with tuition fees, and they're not going up this year in this budget. It's not being cut. When we talk about concerns of things that could come in the future, well, in the future I'll deal with them. If there are things I agree with I'll support it, and if I don't, I won't. But at this point in time, in this particular document, I think it's a reasonable budget.

As a matter of fact, as I said the last time, there are many people who I've spoken to who felt that the budget didn't go far enough. They're not seeing – they said: Jesus, it's another year gone by that we're not tackling the deficit. I've heard that from a lot of people, actually. More so than people being concerned about what's in it. I've heard the other side, more so. Because people realize, people understand the fiscal situation that we're in. How can you not understand it?

We're going to be – it won't be tonight; I guess it will be tomorrow, whatever – debating a bill to borrow another $1.7 billion on top of the $15 billion or $16 billion, or whatever. I think it's probably closer to $16 billion, I believe, that's our net debt now. We're going to borrow another $1.7 billion. If we have to wait until 2025-2026 – I believe it is – to get to a surplus, that means for the next two or three budgets we're going to be adding on another billion-plus onto that debt. That's what's going to happen, I would suspect.

The easiest thing to do is the status quo. The easiest thing to do is the status quo. Leave everything alone, kick the can down the road and bury your head in the sand. We can't do it. We can't do it anymore, Mr. Chair. We have to have the courage, collectively, to make some changes. Credit to all my colleagues. I think pretty much everyone has said that they're willing to make some tough decisions. We'll see when the time comes. But they're saying that they are, and I believe them, because we're all concerned.

Now, does that mean Newfoundland and Labrador is going to sink? That there's nothing to look forward to and that we have no future? I don't believe that. I don't believe it for a second. We look at what's happening in Terra Nova. Very concerning, obviously. I'd love for it to be up and running tomorrow. But do I believe that it's going to spell the end of our oil and gas industry if it doesn't work out? I don't believe that. I don't. It's going to be a kick in the teeth, obviously. It's going to be a major issue for those workers who need a job now or who needed a job yesterday. But as far as the future – and we have to look after those people. We absolutely have to make sure those people are looked after.

But does it mean it's the end of our oil and gas? No. No it doesn't. There is lots of opportunity here. But we need to get ourselves out of the hole from where we're to. We really do. We need that to get to balanced budgets, and once we get to a balanced budget we need that balanced budget legislation. I'll be supporting that as well, because it makes sense. We're paying more on the debt now than we're paying on education. That's where we're at.

As far as this particular budget goes, I'll say again for the final time – I said it numerous times and I'll say it again – I think the budget is a good budget overall. Many people would argue it didn't go far enough, but at least the signals are there that we're going to start moving in the right direction as we move forward. As long as it's done in a fair, reasonable manner that makes sense, and as long as government is open and transparent with all the information – I'm not rubber-stamping it and just trusting you on everything – all the information is available as to how the decision is made, I will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'm seeing no further speakers.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.” (Bill 8)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Schedule in the bill be deleted and the following substituted, and I have copies here for my hon. colleagues.

Mr. Chair, under Head of Expenditure the Head of Municipal and Provincial Affairs should be moved. The numbers remain the same, it's just – I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would love to have $2 billion, I'm sure, added to her budget, but that will not happen today. We are going by what the Estimates had indicated. There has just been an unfortunate mishap in the listing under the Head of Expenditure and I'm happy to table this Schedule that should be correct.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Order, please!

The House will recess just for a few minutes so we can have a look at the amendment and make sure it's in order.

Thank you.

Recess

CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready?

Thank you.

Order, please!

The amendment is in order.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, the Schedule, as amended, carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2022 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the resolution and Bill 8 carried with amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $8,024,380,400 for the 2021-2022 fiscal year be carried. I further move that the Committee report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.

CHAIR: The motion is that the total combined in the Estimates in the amount of $8,024,380,400 for the 2021-2022 fiscal year be carried and that the Committee report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair of Committees.

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $8,024,380,400 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2021-2022 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the amendments be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the amendments be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

On motion, amendments read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the amendments be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the amendments now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

On motion, amendments read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2022 the sum of $4,565,934,100.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a Supply Bill, Bill 8, as amended, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon, the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, as amended, Bill 8, the Supply Bill and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supply Bill, Bill 8, as amended, and the bill shall be read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the hon. Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” carried. (Bill 8)

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 8)

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply Bill, as amended, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Supply Bill, as amended, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Bill 8 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply bill, as amended, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Supply bill, as amended, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper: Motion 5, Bill 17.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider a certain resolution and a bill relating to the raising of loans by the province, Bill 17.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 17.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the hour is late but today we are introducing the loan bill, which accompanies the main Supply bill. Obviously, both bills are debated at the completion of the main budget, which we did earlier this evening. Budget 2021 was tabled in the House of Assembly on May 31, 2021. It identified a borrowing requirement of $1.7 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022. Now, that is comprised of loans moving forward or carrying over as well as the new requirements of the $8.24 billion.

On April 29, 2021, $0.2 billion was borrowed under the authority of the Loan Act, 2020 and authority for the remaining $1.5 billion needs to be provided under the Loan Act, 2021. Under the authority of the Loan Act, 2021 and section 38 of the Financial Administration Act, we will raise by way of loans not exceeding the amount of $1.5 billion. The Loan Act, 2021 will continue in full force and effect until the $1.5 billion limit is reached or it is replaced by a subsequent loan act.

The last loan act passed by the Legislature was the Loan Act, 2020, which provided long-term borrowing authority of up to $3 billion identified in Budget 2020. As of March 31, 2021, the province borrowed $2.8 billion in long-term borrowings of the $3 billion.

The Financial Administration Act authorizes new borrowings for the purpose of redeeming or retiring debt, making sinking fund contributions or retiring unfunded pension liabilities. The 2021 loan bill is required in order to provide specific long-term borrowing authority to meet the 2021-2022 budgetary requirements. Borrowing activity is necessary in order to allow the province to meet its day-to-day financial commitments.

I thank Members of this House for their deliberations around Budget 2021, their comments have been noted and I look forward to the continuing debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Next speaker?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have another opportunity to speak to the budget, I guess, or budget bills. Of course, this one here, Mr. Chair, I referenced last time, although I believe I said $1.7 billion but I wasn't correct, it is $1.5 billion. I was close.

This is going to allow us to borrow up to $1.5 billion. Not saying the government will actually end up borrowing that amount in the end but they can up to that amount. I would equate it to when you go to Costco or something to get gas and it says authorized payment up to $150 worth of gas and then you end up getting $80 and whatever and that's all you needed. It's the same idea; much larger scale but the same concept I guess.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker – or, Mr. Chair, I should say, we are in Committee – it's something that I think we all have to continue to be mindful about. This is up to another $1.5 billion with a B, on top of over, I believe, $16 billion in net debt, which we've already accumulated. As I said, if that goes up to 2025 before we hit balance budget, we're going to be close on $20 billion in the hole by the time we get a balanced budget with that trend, if it continues.

Hopefully, there'll be some good news and a few windfalls along the way that will help keep that number down as much as possible, but the reality of it is, is that we're continuing to head in a direction that we don't want to be heading in.

Again, that also reiterates the point that we all have to be committed here in this Legislature for the next four years, assuming we don't get another election before then. We all have to be committed, I believe, to collaborating, co-operating and finding ways to reduce that deficit. As I've said in the past, I will say again, I'm prepared to go down that road. I'm prepared to go down that road if it's done fairly and it makes sense but – here's a big but – I need the information. I need the information. Not like this whole Terra Nova deal where we're expected to support a particular action or particular position, we don't have the details.

Now, when it comes to this scenario, unlike the Terra Nova deal, of course – the Terra Nova deal you're dealing with private business, there's commercial sensitivity and so on. When we're talking about agencies, boards, commissions and core government departments, the big difference is, I would suggest, that everything we're talking about here is publicly owned infrastructure, public programs all paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

There should be no reason to my mind – no reason whatsoever – why when government goes down the road on reimagining and reshaping government, absolutely no reason, no excuse not to share each and every detail with Members on this side of the House. No reason. As long as you're prepared to share all those details, all that information and truly collaborate, then as one Member I'm willing to go down that road with you. I know I'm not alone, but I'm just speaking for myself at this point in time. I'm willing to go down that road.

But if the plan is that we're just going to sort of do our thing in the Cabinet room behind closed doors and make all these decisions and just come in here, in this House of Assembly, and say we need you to support it because this is the right thing to do, this is what we've decided, then – you'll still do it because you have a majority. That's the reality. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately, because the downside now of a majority government – it was better before, as far as I'm concerned, with the minority. At least you had to find at least one Member on this side that agreed with you. If you couldn't find one Member that agreed with you, probably what you were doing wasn't a good decision to begin with, if everybody disagreed with you.

Now, of course, in a majority situation you're going to do what you want anyway, which is unfortunate. It's sad. Nonetheless, whether you can do what you want or not, I'll die on the hill with you on certain things, if necessary. I'm prepared to do it, to do what's right. But if you're not going to share information, you're just going to come in here and just throw stuff at us and say here's what we're doing, get on board – ain't happening. I don't care. It's just not happening. It's not going to happen. I just say that and I put that there just for the record.

Now, as this is a money bill, we can talk about whatever we want. Something I haven't talked about for a while, but I said I was going to keep bringing this up – and I am going to keep bringing it up – is the recent provincial election. I want to bring that up again. I don't want us to forget about it, I don't want it to get lost because what happened was wrong. I don't care what anybody tells me. You can come up with any rationalization, any excuse, whatever, it was wrong.

I won, so at the end of the day I could just simply say nothing about it and say: Hey, it was great. I won handily. It was perfect; it was all fair and square. I'm sitting here. We could all say that. There's nothing for me to gain by bringing this up. Not a thing. Nothing for me to gain and nothing for me to lose, other than the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

Now, we all know – I could repeat all the things that happened during the election. We could talk about the thousands of people who did not get to vote, a lot of them who are seniors and people who voted their entire lives, always voted, that were denied that opportunity. We can talk about people who were special people that got to actually vote in person on the last day; went down to Elections NL, apparently, and voted there in the parking lot. How that could happen?

We can talk about certain people that were allowed to vote over the telephone. We can talk about the phone lines that were down more than they were up. We can talk about the computer system that crashed I don't know how many times, including the deadline for voting online and people who didn't get to vote because of that. We can talk about the more special people that actually had the Chief Electoral Officer hand-delivering ballots to their house. Can you imagine?

We can talk about the scrutineering process. Anyone who has been involved with an election before, you get to scrutinize every single ballot. I was given the option: Okay, you can go online and we'll show you. I go online and I can see a table. I can see a bunch of people off in the distance doing something. They could have been having a game of Rummoli for all I know. I don't know what they were doing. A bunch of people sat around a table; you're getting to scrutinize.

Then, at the end, they said: Well, these are the rejected ballots that we determined are rejected. Any objections? What about the ones that you determined shouldn't be rejected? Should I be able to see those? How do I know you counted them right? Normally, they put them in piles of 10 or whatever; they make a bunch of piles. How do I know that my ballots never went over here when they should have been over here, and my opponents went there when they should have went there? How do I know they were counted properly? How do I know they were recorded properly? That's what happens with scrutineering. That's the whole purpose of scrutinizing an election. None of that happened.

I mean we can go on and on and on about the things that happened, but we all know that. The big piece for me – I know there are court cases going ahead and that's their right. We know there was one challenge that was put in for a recount. That was turned down. There are a couple of challenges going before the courts on – controverted election, I believe, is the terminology they used. Fair enough.

The part I want to go back to, which I've gone to before and my colleague has – and I have no axe to grind. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have no axe to grind with the Chief Electoral Officer. He's done nothing to me. Not a thing. I have had no interactions with him, really, other than when you send in your annual conflict of interest statement or whatever. There is never anything questioned on that. Thankfully, I've never been under investigation. I hope I never am.

I've had no real interaction with him. I don't know him. I'm not his enemy; I have nothing against the man, but he's an Officer of this House of Assembly. He was appointed by this House of Assembly. He's our employee. We are his employer. He's answerable to us. It is beyond me why we don't bring this person into this House and have the ability to question him or even have a Committee – if we don't want to bring him into the House, at least have a Committee. Use the House of Assembly Management Commission as an example, and bring him in and question him on all these irregularities and all these decisions that were made. Let him justify why he made them.

He even said himself to the national media that he wasn't allowed to take votes over the phone. He said I'd be – what was it? My head would be spinning or something if I did that and then he did it anyway. I have to ask if this was the Auditor General or the Citizens' Rep or something and they were doing things that were improper and so on, would we'd just say, oh well, that's all you can do, b'y? That's all you can do. Would we?

I mean, that's the precedent we've set. We've set the precedent that basically says an Officer of this House can make very questionable decisions, breaches of the act – admitted to breaches of the act – and we're going to pretend that it didn't happen. We're going to change the legislation to make it better for next time. It doesn't matter what the legislation is. We already have a piece of legislation. It is called the Elections Act, 1991. He breached that, admitted it and we're going to forget about it and pretend it didn't happen. I just cannot understand for the life of me why we would do that. It makes no sense. He needs to answer to it.

I'm not prejudging the outcome. Maybe he has a total explanation for everything. Maybe this House of Assembly will say: Well, he made a couple of minor errors in judgment, but not a big deal. He did the best he could under the circumstance and we're satisfied with that. Maybe that will be the outcome. I don't know. I don't even know if some of the things that are out there are actually true, to be honest with you. A lot of it is hearsay. Some of it is true, for sure. I have experienced a lot of it. Some of the things out there are hearsay, but we need to get to the bottom of it.

The most fundamental right we have in a democracy is the right to vote. That's it. That is your fundamental right. If we can't get that right, everything else after that is secondary. People need to have confidence. They have to have confidence in the electoral system. They need to have confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer.

We also have to remember that the Chief Electoral Officer holds a dual role. He is also the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. He's the guy that's going to be investigating you and me if there is a complaint on something. We need to ensure that he is impartial, that he's fair, that he's competent and that he's non-political. This is impacting everybody in this House. If he can't carry out an election properly, can he carry out the other functions properly? Can we trust him to? I don't know. I'm asking the question.

Again, it is not about him, there is nothing personal here. It is about what happened and it is about having integrity in that position. Someone that we can trust and someone we can have confidence in. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not have confidence, at this point in time, in that office. I don't have confidence. I don't. I have no confidence. We know what would happen if this wasn't – if this was in private industry, how long do you think this would last before it was dealt with? Immediate. You wouldn't stand for it. It's not good enough for here either.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Next speaker, the hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's almost worth speaking to take off the mask for a little while, I have to say.

This bill, Bill 17, is extremely important and I don't want to take away the gravity of what we're doing because it is extremely important. That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $1.5 billion. A billion with a B, as my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands said.

That is a significant amount of money. I can't even fathom how much money that is. I guess I want to assure the province that I have confidence in our prudent financial decision-making and we will only use what is necessary. In my department, in Digital Government and Service NL, we are actively finding ways to save more. Anything that's nice to have we're not doing. We're only doing the core things, so I hope to be able to save more than what the Estimates are showing.

Then that's kind of a challenge, year after year. I know that as we hopefully reduce the amount we borrow over the next so many years, that target is going to increase the amount of money that we each have to save. In my past life, in the private sector, saving money and doing more with less was a core part of what my job was. It's very important to me and that's giving me an exercise that I look forward to doing with my department and with my colleagues over the next few years.

Shifting, I guess, because we can talk about our districts and the budget. I'd like to highlight some things from the budget as well as my district and my department. I'd like to recognize this week is Public Service Week. This morning I handed out three certificates, one of 30 years and two of 20 years, to long-serving public servants in Digital Government and Service NL. I'd like to thank them and the entire public service for their work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

I'd also like to recognize and thank the staff of the Queen's Printer. I know that during budget time, it's particularly busy for them. They are up all night printing Budget Speeches and budget documents. I just wanted to thank them as well. I know the task that they expect, but they are here late in the night when everyone else goes home the night before, making sure that we all have our very important budget documents. I just want a shout-out to the Queen's Printer.

I just want to touch on some of the things in the budget that are kind of smaller that I just want to highlight that are very important to people in my district. The first one: I know the minister obviously mentioned all these in her Budget Speech, but the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement and that's kind of closer to my world at the moment, obviously, with a baby at home. The amount that low-income mothers are getting per month is increasing from $60 to $100 a month for when they're pregnant and up until their child is one so that they can hopefully afford more healthy food.

I'm not a nutritionist or a health expert, but I understand that, obviously, the quality of food that the mother eats when she's pregnant and also then for the first year of the baby's life while she's breastfeeding, if she's luckily or able to do so and chooses to do so, it significantly impacts the health of the child. I think that's a very important initiative and I'm very pleased that we're able to increase that amount from $60 to $100 a month in the budget this year, Mr. Chair.

The other item I think that is worth noting – I don't think it was announced this year, but it's a continuation of something that was announced last year – was the low-income bus pass. In Mount Scio we have a lot of residents on income support. They are in a range of different circumstances. I'm sure none of them would choose to be in that situation. I think the bus pass for them can go a long way for those residents, whether it's helping them get to interviews or helping them travel to shop and get specials in different stores where they wouldn't normally be able to walk, and they can travel with their children on the bus.

I think that that is a great initiative that I know is being funded again through this budget. It's not a new announcement, but I'm very pleased that that's still there. I've worked very hard with my city counterparts on that when the program was announced, so I'm very pleased that we're still supporting that and it's very important to me in Mount Scio.

The other one that I'll mention is the Accessible Vehicle Program. I've been recently helping constituents who have accessibility needs and I guess I've been very fortunate to have been quite sheltered in my life and I haven't had the same exposure to the challenges that some of my constituents face. I think programs like this where we help residents with tax relief and grants so that they can buy accessible vehicles for their families and the Inclusion Grants program, I think those are incredibly important. I don't know how some of my constituents do it on a day-to-day basis. I would certainly support more of those programs, so thank you, Mr. Chair.

The other one I'd like to touch on is the $25-a-day child care, which as a mother of an eight-month-old child who will hopefully take advantage – we're on lots and lots of wait-lists, which I know is a popular thing amongst new parents to put your child, as soon as they're born, on all the wait-lists for child care. Hopefully we'll get a space, but you don't know. Actually this morning I met with some daycare operators in my district, and they were highlighting some of their concerns and also some recommendations. I look forward to discussing more about some of the challenges that the daycare operators have with the Department of Education. But it's very important, and I think the benefit of the $25-a-day child care is felt and will be felt by residents across the province. So it's incredibly important.

Lastly, I thought I'd give an update on the breastfeeding journey, which I know for my colleagues I went into before. Well, I know we represent people in our district and I'm very proud to represent the economic powerhouse of Mount Scio, but I'm also here representing women, we're here representing everyone and I'm also here representing the breastfeeding women in Newfoundland and Labrador. In our Facebook group there are 6,900 active breastfeeding women in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is twice the population of Lewisporte. So there are a lot of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: No, it is. Yeah.

There are a lot of breastfeeding women in Newfoundland and Labrador and so I just wanted to give them –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: No, it's just for scale.

Now, there could be more. That's just the ones in our Facebook group, which is very helpful and I have to recommend – all the tips and things I've learned from that Facebook group. When I talked to my mother and my mother-in-law, all the challenges they had that they would've never – obstacles they would've never overcome if it wasn't for the support of those virtual communities, especially through COVID.

It's going well. I'm not able to keep up with my son's demands at the moment, so we do have some formula as well, which I know is a challenge that many breastfeeding moms go through. He probably has 90 per cent breast milk and 10 per cent formula. But that's okay, I'm trying my best. It does mean pumping all day and all night, which is a thing. Someone on my team, when we're here late, drops my breast milk off on their way home to my husband, because we don't have a stash anymore. We're kind of using it as we pump it. Angelica or someone on my team drops my breast milk home when we're staying late here so that he can eat that for supper. Otherwise he will eat formula and that would be fine. So it's logistically a new challenge. I'm not renting a pump anymore, I've invested in a different pump and that's going well. It's battery operated and I can pump in the car; not when you're driving of course.

I've read a lot of feminist things and I know from a woman's perspective women spend more time getting ready in the morning. You think about the pink tax and all that kind of stuff. Well, the breastfeeding tax is even higher, I assure you. When I originally wrote my notes it was a Wednesday morning, I think. So tomorrow morning when we get here at 10:30 I will have breastfeed once and pumped twice, and I will have washed all my pumping equipment twice and each pumping session is, like, 15 to 20 minutes and then washing it. I will have spent probably an hour and a half feeding and pumping and washing the pumping equipment before we get here at 10:30 in the morning, in addition to my MHA and minister job, which I'm very happy to do because all that is for the benefit of my son.

Just to, I guess, shine a light on some of the things that a lot of women in our province are doing on a day-to-day basis. I guess I'm trying to raise awareness of some of the complexities of breastfeeding, which I know is very important for residents of the province and for their children. I recently noticed that a breast pump is not a tax-deductible medical device from the federal government, so I plan on writing the federal minister to recommend that they make breast pump expenses taxable as medical devices because they are not. I was very excited, I had all my receipts ready, I went to do my taxes and I was, like, what? Anyway, that's an opportunity and maybe I can impact some change there.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the budget, but the loan is very serious and it's very important that we take that job very seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to take too long tonight. I have 10 minutes; I don't know if I'll use them all. To me, despite the late hour and the fact that it has been a long day, this particular bill highlights the real problem we have as a province. The fact that we're here talking about having to borrow $1.7 billion just to meet our needs for the province. It's a pretty serious amount. My colleague from Bonavista pointed out in real language, we're here talking about billions and billions of dollars and for a lot of people in their homes who may be watching or just listening they have no concept of that. It's $142 million a month, that's what we're talking about borrowing. Now, that's a pretty large amount.

I think a couple of the key words the minister said earlier in her speech are: up to and if needed. Clearly those are important words because at the end of the day the objective, obviously, is to try to borrow as little as possible. Some of that is within our control and some of it is not. I mean, our budget is based on a number of projections around oil, our offshore royalties and our taxation revenue. Then, of course, there are expenses that we would normally budget for and then there may be some that are coming up and that are unforeseen. We do have contingency monies in the budget in different places. There might be some for certain parts of my district – I won't say which. I just want to throw that out there. In all seriousness, it is a huge amount of money. I look at the numbers and I recognize, though, that our projected deficit for this fiscal year is $826 million. If we keep on target or do better, then potentially we have an opportunity to borrow a lot less.

I noticed today when I was reading an article from Goldman Sachs where they have actually raised their projections for Brent crude now to say that they're looking to forecast – it's up to $75 US for the second quarter of 2021 and up to $80 US for the third quarter of 2021. If those projections hold true, it would have a significant difference in our budget if we are able to maintain the same production. The minister alluded to in her speech there that every $1 US a barrel, I think, works out to about $19 million in royalties. That's a significant amount of money that could come into the government should those oil prices move up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Yeah, and the exchange rate would help it even.

I mean, those are some of the factors and I recognize that nobody wants to borrow $1.7 billion if we don't have to. We hope that the projections again – there are obviously concerns around – we've talked about the Terra Nova and what the impact of that may or may not be depending on what happens with that project. I think we're here this evening and I certainly haven't heard anything. Sometimes no news is good news, I guess, in the sense that the talks must be continuing amongst the partners. We hope they're able to work out a solution on that because there are a lot of people in the province, of course, that depend on that. Again, that impacts our taxation. If all of a sudden 400 or 500 people who currently work on that particular area are throw out of employment, then it certainly has a significant impact on our economy, our taxes and the spending in the province.

All of those things are all part of a budget and, as I said, it's something that we really have to get a handle on. I truly hope that, at the end of the day, this time next year when we're sitting here we'll be talking about not having to borrow $1.5 million because we will still have a significant amount of money left over from what we are about to pass today.

I look forward to continuing to ask questions and to continue to probe and to get the answers and to see where this budget takes us at the end of the day.

With that, I will conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to have a few words about the budget and just a few issues. I'll just let the people who are listening a bit know that this is a money bill and we can talk about most anything in government, any issues that we have.

One of the issues I'm going to speak about is the election. I agree with my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands: Why are we not doing something? Why are we not looking at some kind of investigation into the election? It was a catastrophe. Right or wrong, it was a catastrophe.

Mr. Chair, I said it before and I say it again, when you had senior citizens coming to your door trying to get a photocopy of their ID so they could vote, when you had people going up a camera with an extension to take a picture of someone's driver's licence, there's something wrong. When you get the Commissioner saying I can't take ballots over the phone or I'd be in court so fast my head would spin, then take ballots, there's something wrong. I use this for an example: When you have one party with a number to call in two or three days before anyone else got the number to call in, there's something wrong.

When you lose 140, 150 ballot applications faxed in, can't find them until you're threatened and give his personal phone number – I actually got threats from people saying: Are you sure you sent them in? I don't think you did. And you had to go show them to the people and then give the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, his number to the office – finally they found them – there's something wrong. I know a lot of seniors – a lot of them women, a lot of women seniors.

I look forward to the minister for Status of Women now asking for an investigation, because there were a lot of women who couldn't get the ballots, a lot of women who lost ballots, a lot of women who couldn't even get an application because they don't have a computer. Let's just see if the minister for the Status of Women now, if you're true to your virtues, stands up and asks for an investigation. Because a lot of people, Mr. Chair, that were affected were elderly people who never had access to a computer.

The minister for Status of Women, you just stood up and you're saying you're fighting for women's rights. I agree with you. Here's your opportunity. You should demand an investigation. Because I can assure you that if you had the number of women that knocked on my door that we had to go to their house because they never had access to it, you would be outraged. Let's see if you're going to stand up and be outraged. If not, you're letting the women of this province down.

I'll say that to the minister and I'll stand with you. I'll stand with you if you want to call for an investigation because as we know, 52 per cent of the population are women. Statistics show that if there were a certain number that were disenfranchised, 52 per cent of them were going to be women. I say to the minister of Status of Women, I'm with you. Let's get the investigation going to find out why seniors who couldn't get there ballots or seniors who never had access to a computer, never had access to a phone to download a picture. Let's find out why. I'll stand with you.

I trust tonight now that you're going to stand up and put a motion on this floor that we do an investigation. I can guarantee you that I'll be the first one. You can even put me down to second that motion because if you've seen the anguish on their faces, if you'd seen the grief on their faces, men and women, if you had seen the grief and anguish on their face, Mr. Chair, you would be in my – and I'm sure you did, too. I'm sure we all did.

This is not just my issue; it is not the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands's issue. I'm sure every member in this district seen that and was a part of that, I'm sure. It is not just my issue. I just happened to bring it up because I made a commitment that I would bring it up. I think every Member in this House should be outraged. Every Member should be outraged. When you have Aboriginals who never even had their ballots in their native language, there is something wrong. How can anybody here in this democracy say that the election was run properly? Anybody?

That is why we need the investigation; that is why we need to hold the Commissioner for Legislative Standards accountable and let him come in and explain to the House of Assembly. It is our duty, if the explanations come in and they say, okay, here is why and we say, oh jeez, we didn't know all that – there are a lot of questions we can ask – it is our role then to go out and explain it to the general public and also then make the improvements to the election committee to make sure it doesn't happen again. That is our role. Until we get the facts of what happened, how can we explain to the people who were disenfranchised?

And if you go on statistics, 52 per cent of the people who were disenfranchised were women. Should they be disenfranchised? Should men be disenfranchised? Of course not. This is what I'm saying. This is not a male, female, but I look forward to the minister for the Status of Women to stand up and put a motion in this House tonight. I'll second that motion right away, Mr. Chair.

I'll be back to the election again sometime, but I just want to speak about – there's a wellness centre in Placentia. I know I was speaking to the minister. This wellness centre has been on the go four to five years. This is a bit of a personal issue with me because if people can remember this so-called bullying and harassment, the big scandal that rocked this House of Assembly, one of the allegations that I had to defend myself on is that the $30 million from Vale – I went and got federal funding and spent it all on the West Coast. I had to go defend that. I actually had to send in documentation to defend $30 million which we never even had.

I have to give the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board credit. She wrote a letter saying we never even got the money to put in with the investigation. Never even had the money. But I had to go. I was accused of slowing that down, spending the money and it's still not done.

The first issue I think now is resolved. I was speaking to the minister that it may be in a flood plain, so they built it high enough to mitigate that. Plus, also we know about the mental health facility. The second thing now is that when they put it out for RFP, it came back a bit higher than usual. I know the minister is dealing with the town council on that, trying to work that out.

This is a great facility for the whole area. The town can't afford the funding for it. The one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is finished. That one hasn't even started. I urge the minister. I know the minister met with the mayor or the town council; I'm not sure which. I know the minister is working on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Both? Okay, thank you.

I ask the minister and the government to work on that because this Town of Placentia, who put that in as a priority, has been working on this for a number of years. I know Jamie down there with the Lions Club. They raised almost $650,000. A local Lions Club raised $650,000 to go towards it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Here today, we're talking about volunteerism and talking about the private sector and the public sector: This group did that down there. Jamie Neville, who headed up the Lions Club, raised that amount of money, yet we have nothing to show for it.

I'm not being critical of anybody here. It's us, as the Legislature, and, me, who has a personal flavour to that. We have to try to find a way for that. I know the minister is working with it. I'll say to the minister now: If you need any extra details on that, I'll help wherever I can to get that facility moving. I'll work with you because I know the town is anxiously trying to get the RFP awarded. It's getting soon the steel is going to go up and they may not have the funds to do it, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for the conversations on that. I thank him for meeting with the town council, but let's get this moving. Let's sit down and say that this is something that's been on the go for a number of years. It's something that the voluntary group – Jamie Neville and his group, Mayor Bernie Power and others – have worked so hard to do. It's something that has been delayed long enough. It's also a connection to their arena, so it would be a wellness centre, not just a swimming pool for the area.

I urge the minister to keep working hard on this, which he is, and working with the town council. Anything I can do or any history I can put on that, Mr. Minister, I'll be more than welcome to pass that on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. I just want to speak to this for a bit.

In the budget, like I said, we talked about the investments in cellular service and all that. My biggest question I always have with it – and the Minister of Industry has heard my gripes before about it – when we go out and we give this money to any of the big three telecoms, the large national telecoms, they're usually backed by fed money, provincial money and stuff like that. Then, they bring in their own.

I went and got a cellphone for my daughter. I accidently went in on the site with the company and that; it thought I was in Nova Scotia. I said, oh, that's a good plan. That's pretty cheap from what I thought I was used to. It told me I couldn't get it because I put in my address and it said, oh no, you're Newfoundland and Labrador.

I put in the thing. It was more expensive per month because of here. I stopped and thought for a second and I go aren't we, as a province, investing in cellphone infrastructure for these large telecoms? Aren't we putting money down for these? Yet they still take the time to gouge us. It's unreal. I went and got a cellphone for my daughter's birthday. That's what I went and got her, a cellphone. I just look at the price of adding up the bill. We're paying more here in this province than we are in our neighbouring provinces for coverage that we're investing in as a province. We're putting public money, we're putting our taxpayers' money, into this infrastructure and we're still being extremely ripped off, no doubt about it.

I stop and think and then go so if someone wants to get a cellphone, a low-income person or a senior or anything like that, the amount of money a month that these people are paying for these services now that are required for day-to-day life – it's almost a necessity now of some sorts. Most people now are not really fixed in place and landlines are a thing for offices and that's about it now; you don't see many in a home.

We're investing in this infrastructure as a province, but we still, at the end of the day, are paying the same price as if these large companies are billing us. I always try to think that if we're going to invest money into this infrastructure, there have to be conditions placed on these companies to bring down the cost, to rein it in. It's outrageous. We're expecting people like low-income people, seniors and stuff, to pay these massive prices when they're on fixed incomes. It's unreal.

I think if we're looking at the budget and we're looking at this, these things need to be taken into serious consideration; that we try to do everything in our power to bring down costs of broadband, bring down the costs of cellphones, bring down the cost of this. At the end of the day, the taxpayers' money is going to go back into some of these investments back into these communities for these companies. Yet they're not turning around, looking at us and going, we'll bring down the cost, we'll bring down this to help the residents of the province.

It's something that I just can't fathom. I can't get my head around why we're allowing this. Yeah, I know telecom is a federal thing, but we should be making a lot of noise about how much more we pay in this province for these companies. We're paying more here than Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec – we're paying significantly more for telecom in this province. Then we turn around and we have to pay the most. It's unreal. These large companies – we're giving them taxpayers' money to do the upgrades to their infrastructure and they turn around and charge the residents exorbitant amounts of money.

It needs to be looked at. It's something that I have a serious problem with and it's outrageous. These small communities are going to get these towers, yes. Great, wonderful, should've been done a long time ago, but when they have to go and buy their first cellphone and get their first phone bill, they're going to realize very quickly that they're being gouged. We really need to take a serious, serious look at when we invest public money into these telecoms, about what they're charging back to the residents.

That's my gripe for this. I know that we're in last of it so I will leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Any further speakers to Bill 17?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak again. This will be my last time for this evening. I know everyone is going to be disappointed.

Mr. Chair, I normally don't get into little issues, so to speak, in the district, because I'm usually pretty focused on the bigger provincial issues. I just wanted to take this opportunity just for a number of little quick points and kudos I wanted to throw out, in my district, in my community.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I just want to acknowledge the great work of Meghan Rubia in Mount Pearl. She's been involved with the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance in the office for a number of years, along with Mike Bugden. Meghan is going to be moving on to a new opportunity but we're all certainly going to miss her. She's definitely been very much the face of the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance. She's done tremendous work for sport in Mount Pearl. I want to wish her all the best and thank her for all that she did in the district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, I also want to mention – the next one is Seniors of Distinction. The Seniors of Distinction Awards are coming out; they're taking nominations up until June 28, I do believe. We certainly have tremendous seniors in our district who have done yeoman service in many aspects of life; certainly, the Mount Pearl Seniors' Independence Group is one that comes to mind. Whether it be collectively or whether it be on an individual basis, we have a number of great contributors. I'm certainly encouraging the citizens of Mount Pearl, and Southlands as well, to consider nominating a worthy individual in their district.

Mr. Senior – I'm not sure if you are. That probably is true.

Mr. Chair, I also wanted to highlight that we did have an incident in Mount Pearl and Paradise only a couple of days ago. It was a very shocking event as it related to somebody took down the pride flag at the school in Mount Pearl and also one in Paradise and they actually burned the flag. That was a terrible situation, obviously, nobody in this House of Assembly would ever support that and I know that people in my community don't support that.

I do want to throw kudos out to the City of Mount Pearl in reacting to that, because our city council had been quite vocal publicly about that issue and the fact that it is not something that we tolerate in our community and it has been condemned. In addition to that, I have to say the city made sure the pride flag is back up in the school of course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Absolutely. But also the city has taken a step further with the pride flag, outside city hall now in the nighttime they have all the different coloured lights shining on the building so it kind of represents the pride flag in lights. They have painted up the crosswalks with the pride colours. They have done picnic tables. They even got logos now that are on the city vehicles; pride logos attached to all the city – I don't know if they're on all of them but certainly a number of the city vehicles as well.

I have to say that I have to give credit to the city that they have taken this issue very seriously and they've done everything that they can do to continue to send the message that we have a very inclusive community and we will absolutely not tolerate any kind of discrimination or hate. That's all that act was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, next on the list here, I wanted to throw out a bouquet to 10-year-old Gavin Mulroney of Southlands. Gavin, for the last few years – it's just an initiative that he took on his own. He has a little lemonade stand out in front of his house on Palm Drive in Southlands. Unfortunately, I never got there yesterday, I was there last year. He had his lemonade stand, he was just selling it for 50 cents a glass, he raised $124 – 10 years old and all the money he raised goes to homelessness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I think that is worth recognizing for sure.

Another very good news story I wanted to mention, I was asked to – I have shared it on social media but I will bring it up as well now. This is technically not in my district, I think it's in the Mount Scio District, I could be wrong. It's right on sort of the border or close to border. Anyway, Elim Pentecostal church, this Saturday – they asked me to sort of share this, they contacted me – from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. they are – normally you see like a flea market where you're selling household items and gently used clothing and so on. They're not selling it as a flea market. They're giving it all away for any families or anyone who's in need that want items. Kudos to the congregation at Elim Pentecostal church for taking that initiative. That will be Saturday from 10 to 1.

I also wanted to mention, of course, this is Public Service Week. I'm sure we all appreciate in this House of Assembly, we know all the hard work that our public servants do. Sometimes they get a bad name, unfortunately, in the public. There is this perception sometimes that you see. I'm sure like any organization or any occupation there's always going to be those that outperform and there are going to be those who underperform. That's natural everywhere.

I have to say in my experience of dealing with the public service here at the Confederation Building and so on or other government departments, by and large, has been very, very positive. I know a lot of work goes into – even the people who make this House of Assembly function, and certainly the budgetary process as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It's getting a little bit loud for the speaker.

Thank you.

P. LANE: I'd like to throw out a bouquet to all of our public servants this week and let them know that we all do appreciate the work that they do.

I also want to throw a bouquet out to the minister responsible for natural resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: Yeah, I own a flower shop here.

I do want to throw a little bouquet out to him. I did read with great interest and I was pleased to read in a news release, it was today or yesterday, but anyway, he indicated that he would be taking action on Nalcor, on these ridiculous corporate bonuses and so on. It seems that he's done just that; trying to reign in Nalcor, trying to get things under control, trying to save some of the taxpayers' money and bring it in line with other public entities and so on.

The man said he was going to do it and he did it. I have to give credit where credit is due. I thank him for keeping his word in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, the final one I have here – and I did do a Member Statement on this I think it was last week, but I do want to make mention and congratulations to Mr. Herb Jenkins in my district. Herb is a long-time community volunteer, but he's also an amazing soccer player. He was one of the better soccer players in Newfoundland. He was one of two – I think he was even better than the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at soccer. He's in the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame; he's in the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame. He was one of two of the first Newfoundlanders to have national certification in coaching and so on. He brought that expertise back here to Newfoundland and he trained an awful lot of individuals.

While soccer is one of the big things he's known for, the reality of it is, is that over the years pretty much anything that's been on the go in Mount Pearl, Herb has been involved and he's made a tremendous contribution.

Just last week, he was honoured by Mount Pearl Soccer being made an honorary lifetime member. I think he's the third – I'm not sure if it was the third or the fifth, but there's only a small group of them –

L. STOYLES: Five.

P. LANE: Five. My colleague for Mount Pearl North says five. So he's the fifth. I want to congratulate Herb.

With that said, I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm done for the night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Any further speakers to Bill 17?

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.” (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 6 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 17 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill –

CHAIR: Seventeen.

S. CROCKER: Seventeen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: It's okay.

The motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 17.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committees.

P. TRIMPER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means report that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give the same effect.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $1,500,000,000.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province, Bill 17, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province, Bill 17, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province,” carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 17)

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody that knows me knows it is well past my bedtime.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Premier, that Bill 17 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 17)

On motion, Bill 17 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier, that Bill 17 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 17)

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Premier, that this House do now adjourn.

SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.