April
3, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 4
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I
welcome to the public gallery today Mr. Doug Dunsmore who is the subject of a
Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we have the Members for the Districts of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune,
Mount Pearl North, Bonavista, Placentia West Bellevue and St. John's East
Quidi Vidi.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to pay tribute to the Hermitage-Sandyville Volunteer Fire
Department for celebrating its 40th anniversary this past December. I have
always had great respect and admiration for firefighters' efforts as volunteers,
the countless hours, the high-risk situations and the constant search for
funding support.
It is an
honour to share their accomplishment and pride in celebrating this 40th
milestone, and I commend and thank them for the decades of professionalism and
commitment to ensure the safety of residents. It is remarkable that we have so
many long-standing volunteer firefighters in this rural area, where it can be
extremely challenging to recruit volunteer firefighters. We surely have great
people, dedicated to service and fortified with proper training. As dangerous as
it can be at times, I am sure it must also be a very fulfilling and rewarding
role to take on.
I ask
that all hon. Members join me in congratulating and thanking the
Hermitage-Sandyville Volunteer Fire Department for 40 years of outstanding
dedication. On behalf of the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune and the many
local citizens who benefit from your courage and support, I truly say thank you.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize Gemma Hickey who was
named the Human Rights Champion in Newfoundland and Labrador for 2016. On
December 8, 2016, the Human Rights Commission granted Gemma this recognition as
they have made a meaningful, lifelong contribution to human rights here in the
province.
Gemma is
an extraordinary activist and community leader. Gemma's passion and commitment
to helping others is inspiring. Gemma is the founder of Pathways, an emerging
organization that offers support to survivors of clergy abuse. Last year, the
Hope Walk attracted a great deal of support and attention. But Gemma is best
known for co-leading the movement that legalized same-sex marriage in Canada.
Gemma is a force for social change, and will continue to do great things in
life, mostly for others.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Gemma
Hickey on so many accomplishments to date and wish Gemma the best in the future,
as I'm sure there's a lot more good work to come.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was
Autism Awareness Day, a day where many wear blue to open a dialogue about
autism. However, to people such as Treshana Gosse of Harcourt every day is
Autism Awareness Day.
Five
years ago, Treshana gave birth to Georgia, a bright young girl on the autism
spectrum. The irony of Georgia's birth is that Treshana started working with the
NL Autism Society 6½ years ago. As assistant manager for the Eastern Region, she
is a tireless champion, providing programming on the Burin and Bonavista
Peninsulas, reaching west to Glovertown and east to Norman's Cove.
Since
March 2016, Treshana has become the face of autism training for first responders
in the province. This issue was raised by a firefighter in Come by Chance who
had an autistic nephew. Fire Chief Duane Antle who is also president of the NL
Association of Fire Services reached out to Treshana, who developed a training
program which is continuously delivered in all regions of our province.
I had an
opportunity to visit the society's office in Clarenville recently and all I can
say is wow. Treshana, you and your Program Coordinator Lisa Lane, truly make a
difference to those you serve.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, she has done it
again! Rising above the odds, overcoming any challenge that lay before her and
shattering world records, Kaetlyn Osmond made Newfoundland and Labrador, and
indeed all of Canada, proud as she skated to a silver medal performance at the
World Figure Skating Championships in Helsinki.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Her parents, Jeff and Jackie, were in the arena to watch and were quoted after
the win saying they were ecstatic and rightfully so!
Mr.
Speaker, we know Kaetlyn's story so well. Having grown up in Marystown to move
as a young girl to pursue her skating dreams in Montreal and then Edmonton,
where she lives today, she would return from the Sochi Olympics with a silver
win only to shortly after suffer a devastating injury. She had to learn to skate
all over again. Dedication, discipline and deep-rooted family support have all
led to her roaring comeback.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in saying congratulations Kaetlyn for
the superb performance, and thank you Kaetlyn for being the wonderful ambassador
that you have become. You were silver on the podium but first in our hearts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I take
particular delight today in rising to acknowledge a constituent who has changed
the face of choral music since accepting a position at MUN's School of Music in
1979.
Besides
his immeasurable contribution to generations of students, who in turn became
teachers, Dr. Douglas Dunsmore reshaped the Newfoundland choral scene, already
rich when he arrived. Doug's tireless energy helped bring that richness to
national attention; those he inspired brought our choirs to the world.
Doug was
founding artistic co-director of the spectacularly successful Festival 500, and
was involved in so many projects, Mr. Speaker, I could talk for hours.
Particularly dear to me is the Philharmonic Choir of the Newfoundland Symphony
Orchestra, which Doug founded with NSO conductor Peter Gardner. We who have the
privilege of performing major oratorio repertoire can attest to the joy of doing
so having been directed by someone with Doug Dunsmore's knowledge and
enthusiasm.
Doug
retired as choir director after the annual December performance of The Messiah,
another of his legacies to our choral music scene. We're sad to see him go, but
grateful for having worked with him.
I ask
the House to join me in thanking Dr. Doug Dunsmore for his dedicated work,
particularly for the NSO Philharmonic Choir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize drinking water system operators in this province. Last week, I joined
over 300 participants for the annual Clean and Safe Drinking Water Workshop in
Gander everyone from operators, municipal representatives and trade show
exhibitors, to national experts in the field.
At the
workshop, I was pleased to present the Volunteer Operator of the Year Award to
Mr. Calvin Warford of Pleasantview for over 35 years of countless volunteer
hours.
The
Operator of the Year Award was co-awarded to two individuals from Ramea: Mr.
Brian Marsden and Mr. John Skinner for their response to the storm effects on
Ramea's drinking water in December.
I also
awarded certificates of appreciation to the other 19 nominated individuals for
their hard work and dedication.
Water
and waste water are a priority for our government, and our department provided
$140 million in water and waste water projects last year in conjunction with the
federal government. Approximately $209 million will be spent this year, and $580
million over the next three years on municipal projects, including water and
waste water systems.
In
closing, I would like to thank the many system operators that attended the
workshop, as they are at the first line for the delivery of water services. I
also thank the Water Resources Management Division for organizing this event. It
is very important that operators receive the proper training and support, and
this workshop is just one of the many initiatives we offer to meet this goal and
to ensure drinking water safety and municipal infrastructure sustainability.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also recognize
the importance of clean, safe drinking water and applaud the drinking water
system operators throughout the province.
I want
to congratulate Mr. Calvin Warford on receiving Volunteer Operator of the Year.
I commend him for his impressive 35 years of volunteer service. I also want to
congratulate Mr. Brian Marsden and Mr. John Skinner on sharing the Operator of
the Year Award.
Mr.
Speaker, it's important to recognize these operators for their hard work and
dedication, whether it's through awards, nominations or certificates of
appreciation. Clean drinking water is important to all municipalities in this
province, and it's important that we see we have so many dedicated individuals
who are ensuring safe drinking water for our residents.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm sure the system
operators who are participating in these annual workshops are appreciative of
the training provided, excellent training but support means more than annual
training sessions and capital funding. Municipalities need more resources for
ongoing training and technical support if we are ever going to eliminate the
many boil orders in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise
to recognize the long-awaited, first ever meeting of the Council on Higher
Education. This council was created in 2005 through legislation. The council's
purpose is to increase collaboration between Memorial University of Newfoundland
and the College of the North Atlantic.
Members
of the Council on Higher Education include representatives from the Department
of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, which I Chair, the presidents and
board chairs of both post-secondary institutions, and, most importantly, student
leadership.
The
inaugural meeting included an overview, Mr. Speaker, of commitments in
The Way Forward, and members discussed
opportunities for current and future collaborative efforts. They identified
areas of interest for future partnership to benefit all regions of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, by working in partnership through the Council on Higher Education, we
will identify opportunities for improved engagement, sharing of resources and
increased collaboration in areas such as research.
Our
government, Mr. Speaker, believes that post-secondary education is key to
Newfoundland and Labrador's success in a challenging, changing economy.
Collaboration through the Council on Higher Education will help provide strong
value for our investments.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for an advance copy of his statement. I too would like to
recognize the members of the Council on Higher Education, and I wish them well
in their mandate. The Council on Higher Education has been a focus of importance
for many years with a continuing goal to line the functions of the institutions
for the overall betterment of our student population.
In 2006,
the act that established the Council on Higher Education was established. I'm
pleased to see the council will be continuing to build on integrated approach
which will result in greater opportunities and a brighter future for our youth,
especially now when it is needed the most.
I look
forward to hearing more about the council and what they will bring forth, and I
wish them the best in their task ahead.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Indeed, the formation
of this council is very good news. It's so important that students are
represented on this council because it's for the purpose of helping the students
that the council exists. I urge government to work with the council and provide
support for more paid internships, a real concern of our post-secondary
students, and that these happen within our post-secondary programs to help young
people to be more job ready when they graduate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, over the weekend, the Member for Labrador West has been saying that the
government is moving forward with the repeat of a study on the fixed link this
fiscal year the government has budgeted $750,000 for the study in the 2016
budget.
I ask
the Premier, the minister responsible for Labrador, to tell us what, if any, of
the money has been spent so far.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
one of the opportunities that we have, in working with our federal government,
is that often what we've seen in the past is that they've been able to step up
and leverage some federal money and, therefore, less resources would be required
for the province, Mr. Speaker.
So what
we are doing now is working with the federal government. They have made an
indication that they are willing to participate. Once those contracts are
finalized, we'll get on with this study. It's very important to the people in
Labrador and, indeed, very important to the people all across Newfoundland and
Labrador that we get this study completed. Because it really forms the decisions
that we need to make in the future based on evidence, where we need to be with
this and costing and so on. And what we would then need for ferry services and,
indeed, how long.
Mr.
Speaker, any opportunity that we have to leverage federal money to support a
provincial initiative, we're going to do that every single time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, my
question was how much has been spent so far this year; $750,000 for a fixed link
study in last year's budget. Government also slashed $860,000 from
Labrador-Grenfell health services in the same budget, and some people in
Labrador feel that was quite the trade-off for the people of Labrador-Grenfell
region.
So I ask
the Premier: If he thinks that's a fair trade-off, $750,000 for the fixed link
and $860,000 coming off health care for the people in Labrador, is that a good
trade-off and how will the federal government support the project that he's
talking about? How much money is being spent on this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed
this was not a trade-off. People in Labrador for many, many years have been
asking for a decision on where they would be with the fixed link. There's a lot
of support for the fixed link, just not for Labrador, as I said, many people
look at this as a necessity for all our province. Putting a fixed link in place
will actually change the way goods and services are delivered to the province,
but it would open up Labrador in making accessibility to services and so on and
generate economic activity, Mr. Speaker.
It's
quite clear that Members opposite because I've heard the Members from the
Opposition, from the PC Opposition in the past who have said this was a waste of
money. What they're saying, Mr. Speaker, it was a waste of money to determine if
indeed a fixed link was possible. Therefore, their opinion is that there should
be just a ferry there providing that service into perpetuity.
It's not
the position that we take. We need to determine once and for all if indeed a
fixed link can be done to support Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, a
study done in 2004 on a fixed link, when published, determined that it could
cost more than $2 billion in today's dollars.
So I ask
the Premier: If you're doing a study and depending on the results of the study,
if you go ahead with this, you're looking at a $2 billion bill where's the
government proposing to get the money to pay for a $2 billion fixed link?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
guess it seems like the former premier of the province, and now the Leader of
the Opposition, it seems to me, he seems to have the answer on what indeed the
study would be. I guess the question could have been answered back in 2004. Why
did they actually even start the study themselves if the answer was just to do
it so you can put it on a shelf and not to anything with it, Mr. Speaker?
What we
want to do, there will be a number of options once we get the results back from
the fixed link. We will not give up on people in Newfoundland and Labrador and
we will definitely not be giving up on Labradorians. It's one of the reasons we
made the biggest, single investment in the Trans-Labrador Highway the single,
biggest investment in the Trans-Labrador Highway and we did that in
partnership with the federal government somebody they could never work with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the Premier of the great work that was done on the Trans-Labrador Highway in
recent years, over the last decade.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
As a matter of fact, the
highway was opened under our watch, not under their watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we believe in
investments in Labrador; there are no two ways about it. The study has already
been done. They're re-doing a 2004 study.
I ask
the Premier
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They're
touchy over there today.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will government also calculate the implications on
tourism and trade and the potential implications on the link that currently
connects the Maritimes to Port aux Basques the hub of Burgeo La Poile?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
tell you right now in the preamble to the question, are we touchy over here; we
are concerned over here. We are concerned because what we've inherited from the
previous administration is someone that completely gave up, gave up on places
like the Northern Peninsula, gave up on districts like Burgeo La Poile.
They were addicted to oil. If oil didn't answer the question, they did not go
looking for it. We are concerned about rural areas in our province.
Mr. Speaker, a fixed link study needs to be done to
determine what is required, number one, in terms of ferry services for Labrador,
for the Labrador area. We will continue to make significant infrastructure
investments, not only in Labrador but in the Northern
Peninsula. We're concerned about rural Newfoundland. They gave up on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
unfortunate the Premier doesn't like to answer the question, so I'll ask him the
question again because he got caught up in his own rhetoric over there.
Will the
government calculate the implications on tourism and trade and the potential
implications on the link that connects the Maritimes to Port aux Basques, which
is the hub of Burgeo La Poile I know they're sensitive over that. The
question is simple: Will you calculate those implications on a very important
part of the province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly happy to stand here and speak as it relates to Marine Atlantic because
it's something that the other side desperately was lacking in when they were on
this side. In fact, I can say here in this House that when the Member opposite,
the Leader of the PC Party, was over here he had zero meetings with Marine
Atlantic during his tenure. He had zero meetings with the federal government as
it related to Marine Atlantic. So we certainly don't need to worry about what
their concerns were about Marine Atlantic because, I can guarantee you, they had
none.
What I
can say is this side is cognizant of the challenges in Labrador, it's cognizant
of the challenges we face from rural Newfoundland and Labrador and it's not
something that's meant to be mutually exclusive. We're going to take steps over
here to make sure that we benefit everybody in this province, no matter where
they live.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all hon. Members I'm
hearing a lot of voices, other than the individual that I've recognized to
speak. I ask hon. Members to respect the rules of the House and to respect the
individual that has been identified to speak.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the Member opposite not so, not the case; what he's saying is not correct.
Mr.
Speaker, he didn't answer the question either. Will they calculate the
implications on his district, his own district he just had a chance to answer
it and he never committed to it. Will they calculate the implications on tourism
or on trade? They won't answer the question, Mr. Speaker.
The
joint councils of Labrador in their discussions talked about the ferry service,
they talked about roads, they talked about jobs and I'll tell you what wasn't
the priority for them: the fixed link for Labrador.
So I'll
ask the Premier, the minister responsible for Labrador: Why doesn't government
address the real issues in Labrador and get to the heart of the matters? Instead
of rhetoric, why doesn't he give answers to the people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, talk about
rhetoric. Let's talk about common sense. If the former premier and the Leader of
the PC Party ever visited that district, he would know that it is a big concern
all around Labrador to get a fixed link study done. Get in touch with people in
Labrador, I say to the Members opposite, Mr. Speaker get in touch with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Listen, Mr. Speaker, when I
look at the impact on tourism and economic development in our province, we see
any potential fixed link to have a tremendous impact in a positive sense. They
can talk about the negative impacts all they want, because all we've seen based
on the previous administration is red anyway. It's been just a sea of red, Mr.
Speaker, posting deficits when they've had the highest revenue in the history of
our province. We are concerned. We see this opportunity as a positive impact on
tourism in our province, Mr. Speaker, and yes, we will consider all impacts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A great
performance by the Premier this afternoon, but he didn't answer the question,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the CFIB business barometer indicates that 30 per cent of survey
respondents are going to cut jobs in the next three months.
So I ask
the Premier: What actions are you taking to address this critical impact on our
economy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
CFIB,
we've seen the business barometer, Mr. Speaker. If you notice in the barometer
you would see all province's that are dependent really on oil given the fact
that this previous administration made this province dependent on oil when they
refused to diversify the economy, refused to invest in areas of economic
generation and creating jobs, Mr. Speaker.
What we
are doing to create jobs was outlined last week in
The Way Forward: A Vision for Sustainability and Growth in our
province, talking about some 14,000 person years of employment, Mr. Speaker,
just the investments and infrastructure alone nearly 5,000.
Mr.
Speaker, these are the kinds of investments that industry leaders are looking
for. We've met with the heavy civil; we've met with the agriculture federation.
Mr. Speaker, all of them like the initiatives within
The Way Forward. It is
creating jobs. It's investment in infrastructure that is badly needed in this
province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From a
high to a low.
Mr.
Speaker, the CFIB actually points that taxes and fees as the reason why the
economy is the way it is.
Will
government reduce business taxes in this budget? Can we expect another lazy
budget like people of the province saw last year, or a real plan to get the
economy back on track?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the people of this province have suffered through 12 years of lazy government.
Mr. Speaker, 12 years of lazy government when there was nothing done to bring
investment in parts of this province. Like I said, Mr. Speaker, addicted to oil.
They had infrastructure plans on the back of an envelope, nothing concrete, Mr.
Speaker. They made decisions based on political evidence. That's what it was
done for, Mr. Speaker. It was a popularity contest. They didn't care about
running deficits.
Mr.
Speaker, we are concerned about the future of our province. That is the reason
why we put in place a vision for sustainability and growth in this province. We
will continue to make key strategic investments in our province. Yes, Mr.
Speaker, it will create jobs and it will diversify this economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I remind the Premier, that plan has the Conference Board of Canada
says Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in the country that's going
to have a negative GDP growth next year. So that plan is not really working.
Mr.
Speaker, the Nalcor AGM announced that oil production in 2016 was four times
that which it was in 2015.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: How is this going to impact our fiscal situation in the
upcoming budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to get a chance to stand and answer a question from the
Member opposite. I would refer him back to the information we released as part
of the fall fiscal update when we provided people of the province with
visibility into some of the positive things that have happened with regard to
oil royalties and oil production. Certainly those things which we've benefited
from in the past year will certainly help where we will be when we announce the
budget on April 6.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Nalcor announced $55 for their 2017 forecasting.
I ask
the minister: Is your government endorsing this number as well?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the forecast
that government had in place for oil price is available on the government
website. The Member opposite can certainly look at that. We took a great
initiative last year to be very transparent around where we are with oil
royalties and oil production. There is clearly, publicly disclosed information
there as to government's position on the '16-'17.
When the
budget is released on April 6, later this week, we'll be able to provide people
of the province the forecast numbers we're looking at for the next six years as
we work hard to bring the province back to surplus, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm asking on behalf of the people of the province. The Crown
Corporation, Nalcor, who obviously controls our natural resources, has indicated
that they're projecting a $55 barrel of oil for 2017.
I'm just
asking the Minister of Finance: You and your budget, is that what you're
projecting? Is it consistent with Nalcor or is it not? A simple question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, Nalcor it is
my understanding, the last I had checked provides their forecast based on a
process that they've identified inside Nalcor. For the province, we have
undertaken a number of initiatives including, I believe, upwards of 11 different
forecasters that we use to build our price, which we will forecast.
We
started last year with a revenue risk adjustment to make sure that we were being
careful around the revenue that we were projecting, and we've also taken
additional initiatives this year to make sure the oil price that we reflect in
our budget is based on the most transparent information and the most
knowledgeable information that we have, and we'll release that detail on
Thursday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on November 30, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources for an update
on the extended loan guarantee and at that time an update wasn't available.
I ask
the minister today: Can she give us an update on the completion of the extended
loan guarantee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
back in October we were very pleased as the prime minister announced a $2.9
billion enhancement to the federal loan guarantee. It meant significant
advantages to our province in terms of borrowing and certainly strengthened
Nalcor, and we were certainly pleased to have the support. Since that, there has
been a considerable amount of work done. If you noticed, the announcement was
made by the PMO at the time. It's not something that we came out with.
Mr.
Speaker, we're anticipating that we can actually even bring further value once
we finally get through all the documentation that's required. Mr. Speaker, like
we said so many times in the past, we are not about renting rooms and sitting
down and making fancy announcements when we don't have the feds at the table,
that will include the federal government. We're not going to go there. When it's
done it's done, but I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor and the people of this
province will be better off, will be much better off with the finalization of
those agreements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No
answer again.
On
November 30 as well, at that time I asked the Minister of Natural Resources if
stipulations in the loan guarantee would prevent the sale of Muskrat Falls'
assets. At that time she indicated that provision had not been reviewed yet.
So I ask
her again today: Section 40-11 Change of Control, will assets of Muskrat Falls
be allowed to be sold under the new agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
once again, I'm very happy to respond to this question because right now, as I
said so many times in the past, the lineup of potential purchasers for Muskrat
Falls is few and far between. But I will say, if there's Mr. Speaker, what we
are doing right now is trying to manage, and we've seen some considerable work
that's been done by the new board, by the new CEO, and we've seen this just last
week at the AGM.
Mr.
Speaker, Nalcor is in a much better spot this year. We've put a considerable
amount of work into getting that project back on track, getting it back on
schedule as best we can be. We've worked very closely with the indigenous
leaders. Mr. Speaker, there have been certainly a number of issues that we've
had to deal with working with the Minister of Natural Resources and so on,
working with Nalcor.
Mr.
Speaker, the project is in a much better place today than it was when we took it
over, but there's no lineup of people looking for purchasing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
eastern seaboard the Premier is saying no one wants electricity. In his own
documentation that was released by Nalcor, the new CEO basically said in 2021 to
2040 there'll be $3.4 billion generated in excess revenue.
I ask
the Premier: Is this correct? Does he agree with it or not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course we look for all opportunities for the sale of recall power, Mr. Speaker.
When it comes to Muskrat Falls power, it's very expensive, as we know that. So
the sale of recall power to potentially any jurisdiction will be negotiated.
I can
assure the Members opposite, there is no one in the northeastern seaboard
looking to pay what it would mean for the cost to generate Muskrat power, get it
to those jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker. There is no one lining up to pay that
amount of money.
We will
take every advantage to sell recall power wherever possible; put that back into
rate mitigation so we can get affordable, competitive rates for ratepayers in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now, they are left to burden and shoulder the
complete costs of the Muskrat Falls Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After
eliminating 24-hour snow clearing, the minister committed to this House that
equipment would be available, when needed, after hours. However, during Friday
night's snowstorm, equipment was pulled off at 8 p.m.
Can the
minister explain why this was the case?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure for me today and I thank the hon. Member opposite for
giving me the opportunity to thank the hundreds of men and women that are
working our highways in adverse weather conditions to provide safety for the
people that are on the roads.
Mr.
Speaker, contrary to the Member opposite for Mount Pearl North and others who
put tweets out on Friday night informing the people incorrectly that we were
taking plows off at 8 o'clock, we were not. That's the kind of irresponsibility
that we're getting from the other side. Totally irresponsible, because we did
not take our plows off on Friday night and we provided that service for the
people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe there are a lot of Members opposite taking acting classes lately, but
they're doing a great job.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. PETTEN:
You heard me.
Mr.
Speaker, regardless of what the minister just got up with his antics, the
department's own dispatch line said the plows are coming off at 8 p.m. It wasn't
over Twitter; it was done from their dispatch line. And that would be my
question: What is it: Who got the correct facts?
Your own
department are saying 9:30 but your own dispatch line in their Tweets I should
say. Their dispatch line is saying 8. So you got incorrect facts. Maybe you want
to explain that, Mr. Minister.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, what I would like to clear up, this is not a laughing matter; this is very
serious. If the Members opposite had just an idea of the amount of snow that
we've had since last Thursday, including the Avalon Peninsula, including Central
maybe we should go out to Central Newfoundland and have a look and just see.
We are
probably in the vicinity of about 100 centimetres of snow since Friday. Our
crews are working around the clock to provide safety. If, in fact, the Member
opposite called and got an incorrect number maybe he called the wrong number;
I have no idea.
I can
assure you that we deployed all of our resources over the weekend. All of our
resources were deployed to make sure our highways were safe for the people that
were driving. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I drove back yesterday
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
mind the minister; I do know how to use the phone and make a call. But I never
made the call; others did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. PETTEN:
So everyone else is not
telling the truth, is that what you're saying?
While
doctors, nurses and law enforcement and other Central workers are still required
to travel to and from work, government cuts have led to plows being taken off
the roads at 8 p.m. during a snow event, leaving many to risk their own lives.
Does the government still consider snow clearing to be an essential service?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was
saying the last I was trying to finish off a statement. We had a tremendous
amount of snow and blizzard conditions over the weekend. Yesterday I drove from
Central Newfoundland, less than 24 hours after having blizzard conditions, over
50 centimetres of snow, drove on a highway that was completely bare completely
bare.
Mr.
Speaker, these are our men and women who are out providing these services. The
Member opposite is well aware of the protocol that's in place for emergency
situations. He knows quite well all of that because he was actually working in
the department as an EA. So he should know all of that.
We will
continue to make sure that we deploy our resources to have safety as number one
for our residents in this province, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis, for a quick question.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Last
Thursday, DFO announced a massive 63 per cent cut in shrimp quotas. This is
devastating news to the inshore shrimp industry. FFAW is calling for DFO
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd ask the Member to get to
his question.
MR. K. PARSONS:
FFAW is calling for DFO to
reconsider these cuts. Minister, what's your position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources, for a quick response.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. The position of this government, Mr. Speaker,
and I guess it's the position of this House because our position stems from the
All-Party Committee that we were Members of last year, and we stand by the
recommendations of the All-Party Committee.
We look
forward to working with DFO in the coming weeks to minimize the impacts to our
inshore plant workers and harvesters.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister took the words right out of my mouth: the All-Party Committee. So I ask
the Premier and the minister: Are they willing to set up the committee again so
we can continue having the united front that we had in fighting LIFO?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
two-part question, I'll answer the first part and then I guess the minister will
get up and answer the second part. As we just said, Mr. Speaker, it was
difficult news that we received last week when it comes to the shrimp quotas and
today, again, with the release of crab quotas.
These
are very difficult times for harvesters and plant workers and people that have
made significant investments into the fishing industry in our province. So we'll
be working very closely with all involved. We'll be working very closely with
DFO on all this. I know the minister has been in contact; our office we've had
some chats this morning about this. So, Mr. Speaker, if it takes an all-party
committee to get this right, we will do and consider all the options that we
have available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
inshore shrimp sector has supported thousands of onshore processing jobs, as we
know, while there was virtually no onshore processing generated by the landings
from the offshore shrimp sector.
So I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and Lands: Has he given any consideration to requiring
offshore shrimp licence holders landing their catch in the province to process a
portion of their landings in shrimp plants in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is something that we've
had discussions with our offshore companies about. One of the benefits of the
CETA agreement is that the 20 per cent tariff on consumer-packed shrimp will not
be there any more after CETA is signed.
So it's
going to give our offshore companies an opportunity or an advantage that some of
the industrial shrimp that's cooked and peeled now in other countries to avoid
tariff can now be looked at being cooked and peeled here in the province and
finished to a consumer pack. That's certainly a discussion that we're having
with our offshore companies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I ask
the minister, in trying to maintain a united front from this House of Assembly
on behalf of the people of the province, if the minister will join us in
demanding Ottawa that they make it a condition of licence for offshore licence
holders to direct a portion of their landings for processing onshore?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. We have reached out to the companies, and our
first approach is to work with the companies to entice them or to get their
equipment to cook and peel industrial shrimp on land. There are some more
challenges about it because there are jurisdictional issues, Mr. Speaker. Some
of the shrimp today is landed in other jurisdictions outside of this province.
So we would have to be very balanced in how we looked at that approach.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In the
all-party committee we could discuss that approach and how to move forward with
it.
Is the
minister prepared to call for Shrimp Fishing Area 6 to be deemed inshore only?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
my answer to the first question from the Member for Cape St. Francis was, yes.
That was a recommendation that came out of the all-party committee, I believe,
two years ago. That was the position of us when we sat on that side of the
House, and that's our position today.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister and the Premier have referred to talks and ongoing conversations.
I ask
the minister: Does he have any meetings planned with his federal counterpart to
discuss this urgent matter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
answer to that is, yes. I've reached out to the minister's office. I've been
speaking with the minister's office numerous times since last Thursday. We
continue to do so, and I hope to speak with the minister in the very near
future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
A very direct question, then,
for the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister ask the federal minister to do
nothing less than to reconsider his drastic decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, when we did our presentation as a province or as a department a few
weeks to the advisory committee, we asked to have a recommendation or our
request was similar to that of the FFAW, that the cuts that would have to be
made this year be balanced over a two-year period. We've reiterated that to the
federal minister's office, that we felt these cuts should've been taken more of
an average or a balanced approach.
Mr.
Speaker, we can assure the harvesters and processors and plant workers in this
province that we will be there to support them in any way we can.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
accordance with the Transparency and
Accountability Act, it is my pleasure to table the 2017-2019 strategic plans
for Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 5(2)(b) of the Supply Act, 2016,
I am tabling one Order in Council relating to usage of the contingency fund for
the 2016-2017 fiscal year as it relates to commissions of inquiry.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Labrador West, the following private Member's
resolution:
WHEREAS
most gas stations and fast food restaurant drive-throughs across the province
have no recycling bins available for travelling motorists; and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest recycling rate in Canada;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House recognizes the importance of
increasing recycling in the province and urges government to consider
legislation requiring recycling containers be present at fast food restaurant
drive-throughs and gas stations.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution just read by the Member
for Stephenville Port au Port shall be the private Member's resolution to be
debated this Wednesday.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to present the following petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of
the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
emergency responders are at great risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, known
as PTSD; and
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enact workers' compensation legislation
containing a presumptive clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in
various front line emergency response professions, including firefighters,
emergency medical service professionals, and police officers not already covered
under federal legislation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not the first time I've spoken on this very serious matter, and we
haven't heard any response from government on it yet, or any indication of
giving it some serious consideration. What we do know is post-traumatic stress
disorder is common amongst first responders in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a combination of first responders and types.
We have first responders who are career paid employees, and we have first
responders who are volunteer-based. And, Mr. Speaker, I would go as far as to
say all are professionals in the work that they do, have a variety of training,
depending on the roles and responsibilities. I can also say that
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
for all of us to say that
emergency responders take their jobs very seriously and face difficult and
challenging times when never wanting to or never looking to do so but having to
do so because of the circumstances that exist from time to time, emergencies, a
disaster, chaotic situations and the like that occur in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, currently, under current workers' compensation legislation, a person
filing a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder has to identify the event that
caused the post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that more so than ever
before, that in many times it's impossible for a first responder to identify an
event that caused PTSD.
It is
better known as time goes on and through practice and through greater
understanding of occupational stress injuries, and particularly post-traumatic
stress disorder, that quite often it's an accumulation of stressors and exposure
to events over a long period of time. Sometimes it could be decades before a
post-traumatic stress disorder is diagnosed and understood in an individual
first responder, and that person really begins to come to terms with the impacts
of post-traumatic stress disorder; therefore, the workers' compensation needs to
be reviewed.
Government needs to ensure that actions and steps are being taken so that first
responders understand the stressors, the stress that happens when placed in
chaotic and stressful situations, understand how they feel and how their bodies
will react, and also other ways to prevent illness at a later time.
Understanding is one of those, but when a person becomes ill with post-traumatic
stress disorder it is incumbent upon legislation to be in line, to help and
assist those first responders, not to be an obstacle as it is today. This is
about changing legislation for workers' compensation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Member for St. John's Centre, I understand the importance of
conducting business while sitting in the House, I ask Members to keep the volume
down so that the Speaker can hear the individual presenting the petition.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books, which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
book stores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada, and
the other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to
encourage reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've stood in this House a number of times now and read this petition
coming from all over the province and I believe that people in the province have
seen it has a personal affront, that there's been a provincial tax imposed on
books again, the province with the highest illiteracy rate; consequently, the
lowest literacy rate in the country.
Often
we've heard in this House government defending this, saying it's not going to
affect the sales of books. But our own publishers are telling us our own local
publishers, those who publish the work of our authors, those who take the risk
on new authors as well, who publish their work because they deem it so important
to publish not only the work of established authors, but to publish the work of
a new authors, are saying that they've told government time again that it will
affect the sales of books, and they're right.
We're
hearing from our local booksellers who aren't multi-national organizations, but
local, small businesses who again are passionate about the issue of literacy in
this province who are taking the great risks to retail books written by our
local authors. Not that those are the risks, but the risks in terms of how
difficult it is to survive as a small business in this current economy. They
have clearly told us how this imposed tax is a detriment. They said really what
it's doing; it's robbing Peter to pay Ball. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not a
progressive tax; it's a regressive tax in this current economy. This is a
matter, and we've seen a number of those, where we're robbing Peter, the people,
to pay Ball.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members that it is unparliamentary to refer to another Member of the
Legislature by name. You refer to them by district or title.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Marine Atlantic ferry rates continue to rise, becoming increasingly more cost
prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
increased rates impact the cost of goods being shipped into our province, as
well as those products being exported out by local business; and
WHEREAS
tourism is negatively impacted by the ever-increasing, cost-prohibitive means of
ground transport into the Island portion of our province;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to open a line of communications to the federal
government to begin and advocate on behalf of the residents and businesses of
this province, not stopping until the results are realized.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this issue has been brought forward to this House on numerous occasions
via petitions from me and some others Members of our Official Opposition. It's a
very important issue facing us. As we know, it's our link to the mainland under
the terms of union, Marine Atlantic.
It's
something that's been subsidized by the federal government as per their
obligation. These increasing rates are becoming more of the norm in the last
number of years. There was a time when those rates were increasing and some
Members opposite were the most vocal opponents to those rate increases. But we
find now, with this new, renewed relationship with Ottawa, it's harder to find
some criticisms of these rate increases.
With
this newfound relationship, I think it would be incumbent upon them to use that
great relationship to talk about this issue. Instead of they just accepting it
and saying thank you very much, and okay the rates are increasing, we will deal
with it.
It was
deafening. When the rates were increased in previous years, they were very, very
vocal, and rightfully so as we are now. There is disconnect now. Because of
the party stripes, it's not cool to be criticizing your federal counterparts at
a time like this over increases that affect each and every one of us. Whether
it's your grocery shelves, whether it's an automotive store, whether it's a
tourist coming, it affects pretty well right across the province. The cost of
transportation to get to the Island, if you're not flying in, coming through
North Sydney during the winter and Argentia in the summer, these rates and
results effect consumers. They're very important, and it's meaningful to people.
It's one of those hidden costs. You see it slowly creep up, but it is additional
costs of crossing the North Atlantic, North Sydney.
As a
government, every issue bears importance. If it has a negative impact on our
economy and our citizens, it is incumbent upon the government of today,
regardless who is in Ottawa, to stand up for our rights and be vocal and to
lobby to get those rates more in line with people's affordability.
Those
rates lately, if anyone has noticed, the increase in those rates is getting to
the point where it is becoming very cost prohibitive. I encourage government
opposite to use their newfound relationship to do something about these rates.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know
it's outside the Standing Orders; I've tried this a couple of times. The Members
opposite stand and present petitions and would like to know government's
position. I'm prepared at this time to speak to this if they'll provide me with
leave to speak about this. If they are interested in knowing government's
position, I'm prepared to stand here in this House and speak to the people of
the province and the Member opposite about what government is doing, but I
require their leave and I wonder if I have it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the hon. Member have
leave?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, it looks like no leave.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the government has not implemented curriculum to teach the basic monetary skills
needed by our youth; and
WHEREAS
the government of our province has the responsibility to act in the best
interests of our youth; and
WHEREAS
the youth of our province deserve the greatest level of respect and
consideration;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to introduce financial education into provincial
curriculum to prepare youth for the monetary and financial challenges of life
upon entering the workforce.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we know, there's no doubt, there are challenges in our education system
from every level, but our education system has as one of its key objectives, is
preparing our students, upon graduation and as they transition through different
levels of our secondary school system, to move into post-secondary or move into
a career within the realms of their particular specialty or something that they
feel is going to be their contribution to our society, to prepare them for that.
Too
often we hear about one of the largest numbers that's increasing is bankruptcy
amongst young people. When they come out in their first job, it's probably the
first time that they've had disposable income from their perspectives, they move
into a financial situation where there are enticements to be able to buy
vehicles or homes or certain things or specialized things because interest rates
are low or there are no down payments. That's all part of the business
philosophy, getting people to buy certain products.
Young
people not understanding, when they come out, exactly what impact that may have
on them financially is a detriment to our whole society; it burdens them with
debt. It prevents them from, in some cases, being able to transition to other
careers. In some cases, going back to a post-secondary education institution to
upgrade or take a different line of a career path that they'd like to do.
It
sometimes has a major effect on relationships because of the burden. It prevents
them from being able to do certain things from an investment point of view
because they're not familiar with it.
So what
we're saying is, and there have been discussions, this is not new. My days as a
civil servant going back, and we used to have, the Crown agency was then the
Youth Advisory Council. Part of the discussions around there, and that goes back
to the early '80s, young people had said they need to be prepared for
understanding the financial restrictions, the financial challenges but also some
of the financial privileges that young people will have in their livelihood.
Part of
the issue here becomes we don't emphasize enough of that, and we're not saying
take away from some of the other key things in our curriculum. There are a
number of courses that are offered within our school system from civics and some
of the other things that could build into it, a key component around financial
responsibility, financial understanding. The world has changed. Now we do
electronic transfers. We're doing purchasing online. People knowing about what
interest rates mean, knowing what credit cards are and some of the things that
(inaudible).
Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to that again, but we think this is
another thing that could enhance our education system and help our students be
better prepared as they move forward as productive citizens.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2, third reading of Bill 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 2, An Act to Amend the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act be now read a
third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 2 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Sorry.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has been now read a
third time. It is ordered that Bill 2 do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity
And Administration Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as
on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would call Order 4, second reading of Bill 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The
Intergovernmental Affairs Act, be now read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 4 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act.
(Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 4, which is An Act to Amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act. And as I am want to do when I speak about bills,
sometimes I speak about their substance, their purpose and the size of it. In
many ways, it's a very small actual piece of legislation in terms of its size.
It only has about a handful of new sections that we're dealing with here, but in
terms of what it's doing, this is a substantive move being done by our
government as it relates to the Intergovernmental Affairs and the department,
and now we have the secretariat. So I'm going to go through the Explanatory Note
and go through the sections, and then I'll talk a bit about the purpose behind
it.
Basically, this is a bill that would amend the current act,
Intergovernmental Affairs, to ensure consistency with the structure
of government departments, branches, offices and secretariats. It's basically
to address a move that was recently made by our government as it came to the
realigning of current departments and divisions and part of the flatter, leaner
management that we are doing with our Way Forward.
When you
look at the act itself, there are a few sections that are basically repealed
with substitutions. So what we have here is section 3 is repealed and now the
following is substituted: There shall be a secretariat within Executive Council
responsible for intergovernmental affairs.
Section
4 of the act is repealed, and now it says: The minister shall direct the
administration of the secretariat. (2) In exercising the powers and discharging
the duties conferred or imposed on him or her by this Act, the minister shall
act under a style of cause that includes reference to intergovernmental
affairs.
Finally,
the remaining sections are subsections 5(1) and 5(2), which deals with the LGIC
being able to appoint deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers necessary
for the proper conduct of the business of the secretariat.
When it
comes to the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, it's very small in size. So again, just
talking about some of the structure behind this, the background and reasoning.
The
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat was established in February
as part of the previously mentioned realignment of government. Specifically,
this new secretariat that is created combines the functions of the former
Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the Aboriginal Affairs branch of the
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs office, and the trade policy function of the
former Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development. So you
see a little change here that I think is quite interesting and quite necessary
as we move forward.
What you
see here is a unification of our government's efforts to build intergovernmental
relations nationally and globally with our efforts to advance our relationships
with indigenous governments and organizations. It's something that this
government has taken very seriously, and the fact that our Premier handles this
responsibility personally shows just how important this is to him. Again, he
works in conjunction with our Cabinet, with our caucus.
We have
a number of Members specifically as it relates to Labrador Affairs. So we're
very lucky to have strong Labrador representation in this House. If I may
provide some foreshadowing, I know some of them will have an opportunity to
stand up later during this debate or during the next debate when we talk about
Address in Reply to talk about Labrador. I'm certain that is something that
Members of the other side will hope to listen to. So perhaps they can establish
some connection with Labrador, because according to Question Period today
they're certainly lacking in some of that.
As I
move forward, we talk about the fact that we have a secretariat established now
that has the capacity to consider interactions with other governments. One of
the things we're seeing a lot again, the Member that sits behind me who deals
with trade policies certainly sees this a lot we had the capability to deal
with trade policy as we deal with other governments. It's a huge part of the
day-to-day work that goes on every day within government and within various
departments. When we look at the fact that all provinces and the feds right now
are pursuing an internal free trade deal which will reduce trade barriers within
Canada, this is something that obviously fits right into that current
development, something that we're trying to do.
Also, we
deal with the natural resource development opportunities which we know have
always existed in Labrador and there's more potential there now than ever. This
will speak to this and will move to this, making it easier as we move forward.
The fact is we still have our offshore petroleum exploration going on, in
Labrador mining, and I know there are other Members that will stand and speak to
this today and they'll talk a bit more in detail about this.
I think
a very important thing to note here as we move forward is the fact that the
responsibility for this secretariat will remain with the Premier. The Premier
has taken personal responsibility for this matter. This is someone even back
when we were in Opposition and certainly when we've been in government, he has
spent a tremendous amount of time in Labrador going up and meeting and been all
over in every nook and cranny of Labrador. He has taken the time to visit. The
fact that he has taken this on, in conjunction with our Labrador Members, shows
just how important he views it. This relationship, we need to continue it. I
think this move here is a positive step as we move forward as it relates to the
establishment of the secretariat.
Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I will take my seat and look forward to the debate on
this bill from the Members opposite, as well as my colleagues on this side, and
look forward to having an opportunity to speak in closing and during the
committee phase of this piece of legislation.
Thank
you so much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 4, An Act to Amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act. We'll specifically look at it's being repealed,
the current Intergovernmental Affairs Act
and the new secretariat within the Executive Council responsible for
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs.
So the
intent, my understanding of the legislation, with the new Intergovernmental and
Indigenous Affairs Secretariat will combine previous functions, some of the
Executive Council, as well as some of line departments, some of the functions,
in bringing those together. Specifically, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat,
Aboriginal Affairs branch of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs office, trade
policy function of the former department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural
Development.
As the
minister indicated in some of his comments in terms of intergovernmental affairs
and relations, many of these aspects obviously are directly tied in terms of
various governments, various structures, provincially and federally as well, the
interaction of various levels of governments.
The
other interesting one is the trade policy function taken out of a line
department. There are many interactions in regard to the trade function, which
I'm somewhat familiar with in my role formerly as Minister of Innovation
Business and Rural Development where the trade function was involved in that
department.
There's
a lot of work done in active files, whether it's internal trade, execution of
trade between provincial jurisdictions in regard to bilateral discussions that
we've seen with CETA the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement in terms of
discussions back and forth, especially in areas of provincial jurisdiction and
discussions with the federal government; as well as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership with their discussions still underway in regard to Canada and
pursuing that with trade partners.
So there
is a lot of interaction from the provincial level from the line department; as
well, NAFTA in some of the discussion we're hearing out of the United States in
regard to that Free Trade Agreement and what some of the priorities are of the
current, new administration in the United States in looking at that North
America Free Trade Agreement and what other changes can be made.
It's
very important that this function to trade and other components are tied and
connected to operations of line departments and what's happening, because
there's interconnection in that regard. In internal trade, one of the things
that is often discussed is the transfer of electrical power and energy, and the
challenge we've always had in this province with Labrador and going west with
that east-west transmission grid. That can be done under various avenues. Under
the Constitution, we have a right to not be discriminated against in the
transfer of that power east to west. At a federal level, all stripes of
government have not given Newfoundland that direction or allowed Newfoundland or
forced any provincial jurisdiction to allow us to use that.
Agreements on internal trade I know the Premier mentioned before when we
talked about Muskrat Falls and east to west transfer of power. He talked about
the fact that there were discussions going on with Quebec. I think he referenced
internal trade. So that's a means in regard to the trade component of this piece
of legislation, how it's now put under intergovernmental affairs, the new piece
of legislation. We need to ensure that the ability and the focus in this piece
of legislation allows it to interconnect with other line departments and
functions of any particular government, any particular time, to ensure the best
efforts for Newfoundland and Labrador and public policy is developed.
There
are three amendments being made to the act. The first round is to change the
name the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat to include the functions of the
former departments some I've spoke of to consolidate the secretariat as part
of the functions of Executive Council.
The
second round of amendments is to allow changes to the title of the minister
responsible for the new Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat so
that the minister shall act under as style of cause that includes reference to
intergovernmental affairs.
The
third is related to the change in title of the Secretary to Cabinet for
Intergovernmental Affairs I understand that was not used since 1998 to
deputy minister or assistant deputy minister of Intergovernmental and Indigenous
Affairs Secretariat.
Now,
some of the briefing and some of the notes that were made available in regard to
the intention and what the desire is for this piece of legislation to support
and what the intent of Bill 4 is, from a government perspective and as I said
earlier, the department changes here are part of and I think the minister
referenced it earlier. The changes, per se, departmental changes, are not new.
They were part of some government restructuring that was announced on February
22 of this year. So I would suggest this is catching up in regard to that
restructuring that was announced at that time to amend the legislation to fit
what the intent of the current administration is in regard to redefining these
particular roles and putting them into Executive Council and combining them.
The
former Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs office has been reconfigured, I
understand, to, from government's perspective, achieve better goals. The
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat is established by merging
Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat with the former Aboriginal Affairs
functions of that office.
So all
of this is tied back to the February announcement in 2017 and some of that
restructuring; and this follows up on that with regard to redefining what that
will look like in bringing it into Executive Council.
With
this and with any piece of legislation, when we go to Committee there'll be some
questions asked with regard to how these new functions work, and are we
confident that this is going to allow the important aspects of this legislation
and the operations of government from a policy perspective, from a fiscal
prudence perspective, from being top of areas of interest in intergovernmental
affairs, certainly from a provincial level, from all levels of government right
to Ottawa that were on top of things that are in the best interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As we go
through Committee, we'll certainly look for some answers in regard to in
separating out Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, is there staffing issues here
and how do we meet the requirements in that regard. Obviously there's a
principle-based relationship with Aboriginal people; to be concerned to make
sure that the new structure meets the mandate of the office to make sure that we
have those relationships we need and we can build collectively with Aboriginal
peoples in policy development, execution of items of importance of all levels of
government, whether it's a natural resource development, whether it's providing
of services and programming, whether it has the ability to meet particular needs
at times in particular communities in society. If there are issues that arise,
do we have mechanisms through this legislation to meet those, and to make sure
we can meet the needs of all people, all our people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Also,
looking at the detailed analysis of how these impact indigenous relations and
Labrador issues in general, it is very important that we have that ability and
protocols and ability through this and nothing is lost through the integration
and directing this to Executive Council, outside of a normal line department of
government. That's very important that we have discussions, go through debate of
how that will operate and how it will function to make sure things are maximized
in the running of government.
Again,
things like has the structure been discussed with the Combined Councils of
Labrador as well, in terms of the council and what other groups were consulted
as well. That's very important. Obviously from a council perspective, very
significant player in regard to representing Labrador and what the issues and
concerns and that collectively we work together, in all functions of government,
all line departments of government, Executive Council and any government of the
day through again policy, service delivery and all of those things that we work
towards collectively. We need a mechanism to make sure that they can be
addressed, first off they are heard and they can be addressed collectively
through the structure of government. So we need to make sure is that what's
being proposed here allows this to happen, and certainly there is no
interruption in what we've achieved in the past and how we can clear the runway
for the future to make this happen.
We'd
have to look at based on the announcement in February 2017 in regard to the
restructuring, I think there was nearly a dozen people employed in the
Aboriginal Affairs division. So what will the staffing division look like in
this new model, the new structure, and we ensure that we have those people,
human resources, technical folks and all those we need to make sure that we
fulfil the functions of what we need to do.
Earlier
I mentioned too, it's certainly very important that we look at the whole trade
opportunities. Is this restructuring a lesson in any way, the importance of
trade opportunities, because it is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador?
When we think about our natural resources, it is very much commodity driven.
Forestry
has struggled over the past number of years. Traditionally, it has been a huge
industry for us. The fishing industry, there continues to be huge opportunities
in regard to this structure today and some of the things we've seen with the
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.
I
mentioned TPC, NAFTA, all of those, we need to ensure that this piece of
legislation by taking the trade component and the opportunities out of a
particular line department, bringing it into Executive Council, will that still
have the focus, the expertise to drive the opportunities that are out there in
our changing environment, our changing industries and in world trade?
Again,
we're huge in regard to commodities and natural resources. Ever since our first
days, over 500 years ago when people settled here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
trades were a huge component of it. It's important that we are ensured by this
piece of legislation that it remains a priority and we can deal with it.
As well,
we talked about internal trade and how important that is interprovincially. We
have the mechanisms in place to break down barriers between various provincial
jurisdictions so we have the free flow of goods and services within Canada. It's
good to export outside our national borders but, as well, it's very important
that we break down any barriers in regard to internal trade between provinces
and territories.
The
other question, why has government moved the trade policy functions of the
former department, that's what we talked about, to Executive Council? Trade is
tied to economic development and tied to the ability to drive the economy and
drive new opportunities. As we go through this, it is very important that we
make sure this division or the transfer of any of this has no way downgraded our
ability to direct trade policy to work bilateral discussions with our federal
counterparts in terms of driving activities that are important to us and the
long-term, socio-economic effects of the reorganization.
We want
to see that as we go through debate on this and make sure all opportunities are
seized through this. If you're making this change in restructuring, I assume
it's been done to further facilitate the opportunities that are out there but I
guess through discussions and through debate on this and in committee we'll see
if that is the case.
Again,
I'm looking forward to debate on the bill as we go through, Bill 4, to amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act in
regard to a new secretariat within Executive Council responsible for
intergovernmental and indigenous affairs. Normally, as we look at things like
budgets and those sorts of things when we go through the Estimates process here
in the House, that's all usually encompassed within Executive Council. So we'll
be interested to see how that would work as we move forward from a budget
perspective, what's budgeted, what's estimated and how we go through those
estimates here in the House.
So all
of those are factors and issues that I think Members on this side would like to
learn about and understand in regard to this particular piece of legislation. As
we go through this afternoon, we'll have debate in second reading and then when
we get to committee there may be specific questions that I'm sure the minister
and those on the other side can answer as we move forward with debate on Bill 4.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Ferryland for his enlightened comments and for the Government
House Leader for his opening remarks as well.
It's a
pleasure to rise today in this hon. House to participate in the debate on
introducing An Act to Amend the Intergovernmental Affairs Act.
The
Intergovernmental Affairs Act gave the
former Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat the authority and ability to build
relationships with other governments and international entities to advance the
province's interests. It also gave the secretariat the authority and ability to
advocate for Newfoundland and Labrador bilateral, multilateral, regional and
international intergovernmental meetings and conferences to promote government's
position on matters of importance to this province.
Mr.
Speaker, the current legislation has not been amended since the 1990s and
requires updating. The introduction of a new Intergovernmental and Indigenous
Affairs Secretariat was established in February as part of a realignment of
government. As the Member for Ferryland acknowledged, this really is much to do
with catching up with the changes that were made in terms of the legislation
that needed to be amended as a result of that.
The new
secretariat, the Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat will
combine the functions of the former Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the
Aboriginal Affairs branch at the Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs office and the
trade policy function of the former Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and
Rural Development. The creation of this new secretariat unifies our government's
efforts to build intergovernmental relations nationally and globally with our
efforts to advance our relationships with indigenous governments and
organizations.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier has made this a priority, obviously taking on those two
functions after assuming government in December 2015, responsible for Labrador
and Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Affairs. He's made a priority in
terms of government to government relationships, whether that be at our federal
to provincial levels, interprovincial levels, and certainly with our indigenous
governments and organizations.
Today,
we see the natural synergies coming together to form this new secretariat which
was done in February, and now it's being reflected in the amended legislation.
The change also achieved a much needed synergy. We now have a secretariat that
has the capacity to consider our interaction with other governments and trade
policy at the same time.
Mr.
Speaker, legislative changes are necessary to ensure the new Intergovernmental
and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat is able to successfully fulfil its mandate.
So, Mr. Speaker, as has been referenced and I'll delve into some of the
specifics here now. Specifically, we're proposing three amendments in Bill 4.
First, we propose changing section 3 of the act so that it will now read: There
shall be a secretariat within Executive council responsible for
intergovernmental affairs.
Secondly, we are proposing changing section 4 of the act so that clause 1 will
now read: The minister shall direct the administration of the secretariat.
Clause 2 will now read: In exercising the powers and discharging the duties
conferred or imposed on him or her by this Act, the minister shall act under a
style of cause that includes reference to intergovernmental affairs. Mr.
Speaker, this really takes away the restrictive language that was in the act
before and gives some flexibility under the act now with this proposed amendment
to section 4 of the act.
Thirdly,
we are proposing changing section 5 of the act so that clause 1 will now read:
The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint, to hold office during pleasure,
those deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers necessary for the proper conduct of the
business of the secretariat. Clause 2 will now read: The deputy minister shall
be the deputy head of the secretariat.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this really is in line with all other senior executive appointments
that would have been made within government by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council which, for those watching at home, is a fancy way of saying Cabinet.
Those decisions would be made at the Cabinet level. This really is to clarify
the language in the act to ensure that it is clear that the deputy minister in
that position referred to as deputy minister is also made the deputy head of the
secretariat.
Mr.
Speaker, in summary of these changes and I just went through them we have
three changes we're proposing. Changes to section 3 of the act; we're proposing
changes to section 4 of the act, Madam Speaker; and we're proposing changes to
section 5 of the act.
In
summary of these proposed amendments, it will change references to a specific
Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat because the act was restrictive in its
language in designing it so that the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat,
there could be no other changes or references included within that name. Now we
can change it to more general references, to intergovernmental affairs, being a
part of the secretariat's duties, which reflect the new secretariat's current
name and broader mandate of Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs
Secretariat.
Again,
it goes back to the Premier's commitment to ensure that we place very strongly a
high value on our government-to-government relationships, as I said before,
whether that be at our federal-to-provincial level. Of course it goes without
saying the tremendous relationship that we've had with the federal government
and we will continue to do that. I would certainly suggest that's in large part
due to the Premier taking this on himself and ensuring that those relationships
are managed in the best possible way.
There
are also other synergies coming into the secretariat through the Indigenous
Affairs branch which the Premier sees as a very high priority to ensure that
government-to-government relationship, the nation-to-nation building there, and
trade policy branch as well, Madam Speaker, which is important. Those are very
natural synergies, as the Member for Ferryland indicated, that do exist there.
The
proposed amendments, Madam Speaker, will also update the title of the minister
responsible for intergovernmental affairs to reflect the secretariat's broader
mandate and we will be removing the outdated and unused title of Secretary to
Cabinet for Intergovernmental Affairs in favour of using deputy minister.
Madam
Speaker, in section 5 of the act right now which we're proposing to change to
read: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint, to hold office during
pleasure, those deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers necessary
. That said deputy minister
under clause 2 would be the deputy head of the secretariat.
Currently in the legislation, the deputy minister of the secretariat is referred
to as Secretary to Cabinet for Intergovernmental Affairs, and that's a title
that has never been updated in the legislation but has not been used in practice
either since the 1990s. The individual style as such, the Secretary to Cabinet
for Intergovernmental Affairs has since the 1990s consistently been referred to
as the deputy minister through successive administrations, and this is really
going back into the legislation now and ensuring that what we're doing in
practice is reflected in law.
Madam
Speaker, the federal government and provincial and territorial governments
across our country are putting greater priority on having meaningful engagement
with indigenous governments and organizations, and this is a priority for us as
well. We see that in the establishment of a new annual leader's roundtable with
indigenous governments and organizations, which is a commitment within
The Way Forward vision. Through this
roundtable, we want to shape an agenda together and create positive change,
because we recognize strong, good relationships with indigenous people are part
of building for our future.
I'm very
proud, Madam Speaker, to have four colleagues from Labrador sitting in the
government caucus
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
who do a tremendous job, a
tremendous job, Madam Speaker, I would suggest representing the people of
Labrador and all groups and governments within it. We have the Member for
Torngat Mountains, we have the Member for Labrador West, we have the Member for
Lake Melville and, of course, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. I'm
looking forward to hearing from the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair
speak later today about some of the issues that impact her district and
certainly the economic viability of Newfoundland and Labrador that came up
during Question Period earlier today, and I'm sure she'll enlighten Members of
the Opposition on what those potential benefits might be, and that's always
important to do, Madam Speaker.
We also
see through the changes being made, the establishment of this new
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat which also advances our
vision because it is meant to achieve better outcomes, and that is really part
of The Way Forward. We're committed to
ensuring the changes we make are for the better and that they're
well-thought-out and put together, and that is certainly reflected in the
changes that were made with the Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs
Secretariat.
Creating
this new entity will place our interactions with indigenous governments and
organizations within government's intergovernmental affairs function, which
properly recognizes the authority and responsibility that indigenous governments
and organizations have in representing their respective people.
Madam
Speaker, this is good legislation. These are simple amendments. As to the Member
for Ferryland said earlier, he acknowledged that much of these synergies now
contained within the Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat are
tied to each other naturally anyway. Those natural synergies exist.
He also
mentioned, as a former minister responsible for trade, that the trade policy
functions that were contained within the former Department of Business, Tourism,
Culture and Rural Development, now referenced as Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation, that those trade policy functions now would be shifted over into the
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat, and that also was a
natural synergy, he suggested, and I agree with that.
He also,
finally, suggested that the legislation that we are bringing forth today is
routine in somewhat of a nature, to clean up what should have been cleaned up
some time ago, some of the language in the act, as it concerns the title of the
deputy minister, and certainly to remove some of the restrictiveness in the
language surrounding the title of the minister, surrounding the title of the
department, the secretariat. It's important that we enable that flexibility and
bring those natural synergies together. I think the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador want government to look at itself to see what are the natural ways that
we can move things in with each other, where it makes sense.
I will
certainly say, Madam Speaker, I believe it to be good legislation. Although
these are what appear to be simple amendments, they're important ones, and this
is all being done to support this new entity that will do good work on behalf of
the province that result in successful engagements with the federal government.
We've
seen now a slew of announcements coming from the federal government. Minister
Judy Foote, you would almost think she is an MHA, she is in Newfoundland so
often delivering money to the province and it's a wonderful thing. I really have
to commend the Premier on taking this role on himself. I think there has been a
lot of action that has derived from that, and really strong relationships that
he has built with the federal government, with the prime minister, with our
federal Cabinet ministers, and certainly our own provincial Cabinet have built
those relationships with their counterparts in Ottawa as well.
But it
doesn't only include the federal government, Madam Speaker. It will also include
interprovincial negotiations, other provincial governments. The Member for
Ferryland also referenced the Agreement on Internal Trade, and that is very
important as well.
We also
see a number of dealings with foreign governments as it comes to the trade
policy function, and perhaps even I would argue most importantly, our
relationship with indigenous governments and organizations, and that's extremely
important as we look toward building effective and strong relationships with
indigenous governments and organizations.
So I
certainly look forward to what comes out of the debate today, Madam Speaker. I
think, as I've said now, these are somewhat routine matters to be put before the
House of Assembly in terms of cleaning up this legislation, as I've said, to
remove the restrictiveness of the language as it concerns the name of the
secretariat when it comes to the removing the restrictiveness surrounding the
language concerning the style and title of the minister. But also, removing the
formal title of the deputy minister and reflecting in law what is done in
practice now since the 1990s.
Before I
take my seat, Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment, certainly, on behalf
of everyone, including the Premier, to say a thank you to the staff at the
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat. They work very hard.
They're not large in numbers, but they work very hard. They have a number of
balls in the air at any given time, and these are very professional, consummate
professionals who take their jobs very seriously, who are superb in guiding
government in its relationships with the federal government, the interprovincial
relationships that we have, our relationships with foreign governments, and
indeed, with indigenous governments and organizations.
It's
extremely important that we all recognize the strong work that the staff and
public servants within this secretariat do. I can tell you in my role as
parliamentary assistant to the Premier I have interaction with them, and I never
stop being amazed by their work, their aptitude, and certainly their skill and
knowledge in terms of what they bring to the table for government. So I want to
say thank you to them for their continued work on behalf of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and I thank Members thus far who have contributed to the debate, and I
look forward to hearing the others.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand and to speak to Bill 4, An Act to Amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act. I also would like to thank all those from
intergovernmental affairs who provided the briefing to my colleagues here on
this particular act.
I have
some concerns, Madam Speaker, particularly about this bill and the concerns that
I have specifically revolve around two issues; one, the consolidation and
concentration of power within the Premier's office, and we see this as a growing
trend; and secondly, I have been in touch, our office has been in touch with a
number of indigenous governments and groups who have not had any discussion
whatsoever with government about this particular bill.
What I
find so interesting is that the House Leader, the Member for Burgeo La Poile,
in his introduction of this particular bill, he said that this is a little bit
about the flatter, leaner government. I'd like to say flatter, meaner
government. Also he says that the responsibility for this secretariat but it's
a secretariat with a small s, not a big s, and that will have some bearing and
we'll talk a little bit about that, Madam Speaker will remain with the
Premier. He said specifically the Premier has taken the time to visit the
indigenous communities, particularly in Labrador, and it shows that he is
committed.
I'd like
to say, Madam Speaker, that it's quite the opposite. This does establish a way
of working with indigenous communities and nations here in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The indigenous communities that I've been able to
contact so far have not been notified about this act at all, have not been
consulted, have not had any conversations whatsoever with this government who
says that this is about creating a better way of governance and a better of way
of relationships with indigenous communities.
I
believe that is extremely problematic. So it indicates that in fact this is not
about better relationships, and we are waiting to be able to hear from more
indigenous communities and indigenous governments in order to see really what
they feel about these particular moves.
Although
it is a small bill as said by the Government House Leader, the Member for Burgeo
La Poile, it is substantive, not in the number of words that we are dealing
with today, but in terms of the changes that it does promise.
The bill
makes amendments to the Intergovernmental
Affairs Act to restructure the role of intergovernmental affairs in
government. The reason for the bill is that intergovernmental affairs connects
with other provinces, the federal government and governments in international
entities to advance the province's interests. It also advocates for Newfoundland
and Labrador at bilateral, multi-lateral, regional and international
intergovernmental meetings and conferences to promote government's positions on
matters of importance to this province.
So it
was on February 22 that government announced it was restructuring the old
secretariat, combining the former Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat with the
Aboriginal Affairs branch of the former there are a lot of formers happening
here, Madam Speaker Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs office and the trade
policy aspects of the former Department of Business, Tourism, Culture, and Rural
Development into the new Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat
and the office of Labrador Affairs to better achieve its goals.
Now the
concerns again, Madam Speaker, is that this is a further consolidation and
concentration of power in the Premier's office. I would like to point out no
matter the economic situation of this province, no matter the government's
approach to a flatter, meaner governance, to consolidate power at this time is
the antithesis of what should be happening.
Again,
I'm amazed, absolutely amazed that indigenous communities, indigenous
governments have not had a discussion; have not been approached by government;
have not even been informed by government that this is happening. This is about
the relationship and as the Member for Placentia West Bellevue said: This
will advance our relationships with indigenous governments and it will bring a
stronger relationship with indigenous governments.
The
indigenous governments have not been consulted; have not had a conversation
about this. They did not even know that this was on the table. That is not how
you improve relationships. As a matter of fact, it's the antithesis of how you
improve relationships.
The
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat has been established by
merging the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat with the former Aboriginal
Affairs functions of the office. The move unifies the provincial government's
efforts to build intergovernmental relations, with efforts to advance
relationships with indigenous governments and organizations again, without any
conversation, consultation, dialogue with indigenous governments.
A
separate office of Labrador Affairs has been created to help address unique
issues and advance social and economic development in the region. The
responsibilities associated with both of these offices remain with the Premier,
which in and of itself is problematic. Again, this is a further concentration
and consolidation of power in an office that has already been consolidating and
concentrating its power.
Diminishing our democracy, diminishing our way of doing governance, I don't
think that's what the people of the province want. We have a House with 40
representatives elected to govern and to further consolidate power into
Executive Council and to the Premier is not the way we should be going.
So it
appears and I believe it not only appears, that in fact it is to both
centralize more power under the auspices of the Executive Council and the
Premier's office, which is a troubling trend, as well as appearing to bury the
issue of Aboriginal Affairs, which for much of the last 20 years has been a
department in its own right. So when we see the amendments to this bill, where
we see a secretariat that is outside of Executive Council but still accountable
to Executive Council, to moving it right in Executive Council, we see the move
from the capital S to a small s. That is indicative, absolutely indicative of
what's happening with this bill.
When we
look at, Madam Speaker, this amendment reflects a growing trend in western style
democracies. In Canada, we're talking about the consolidation of power and the
concentration of power into Executive Council and away from departmental
responsibilities. In Canada, we first saw this move under Pierre Trudeau Sr.,
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Prime Ministers Chretien and Harper were famous
for trying to control every aspect of the federal government from their offices.
We're seeing that more and more.
This
phenomenon is called the 'presidentialization' of parliament, and the trends
towards centralizing executive power in one office, the Americanization of
Canadian politics, which is not the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to
work, and we are seeing this. We're seeing how it hasn't worked. In fact, Madam
Speaker, this is a regressive step. This is not a progressive step. If it's
based purely on economics it's a regressive step. I believe it's not based
solely on economics but that movement to centralization of power.
This
province has had a long history of power being centralized in the hands of the
executive, especially the Premier. Premier Joseph Smallwood was well known for
attempting to run government as his own personal fiefdom. Ministers under his
government had little or no true power, and this became worse as his
administration aged.
Premier
Danny Williams exerted a great deal of control from his office. So it's not just
the other side of the House, Madam Speaker. It's also the current Official
Opposition, when they were in power also started the trend of centralization and
consolidation of power.
Now,
The Telegram columnist Russell
Wangersky wrote: Williams was so involved in the daily working of his government
that a feeling grew over the years, if you really wanted an issue dealt with by
the government as a whole you had to garner Williams' personal interests first.
Williams
was criticized as being a one-man show, a controlling leader with his hands on
everything. Now, the Premier was traditionally considered first among equals and
her or his Cabinet being those elected officials who the aid of their caucus ran
government. Now what we see is that we have specific roles once again removed
from that and into the hands of the Premier.
Again, I
would like to stress, although government is saying, both the Government House
Leader and the Member for Placentia West Bellevue, that this is about
improving relationships, improving relations and better governance with
Aboriginal government, indigenous government in Newfoundland and Labrador and
indigenous groups, they have not been consulted on this as far as we know. We
have been speaking with some; they know nothing of this bill. That's not how you
develop better relations.
So
again, looking at this trend of consolidation of power, this trend has
disappeared as election campaigns and policy announcements tend to focus on the
leader's performance. This bill here today continues this disturbing trend. We
see more centralization of power in Executive Council with the virtual
disappearance of Aboriginal Affairs into a new conglomerate of functions now
referred to as the Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs secretariat, with a
small s. Just one of the host of functions lumped into Executive Council.
I ask
the Premier, why do this when it diminishes the importance of Aboriginal
Affairs, Indigenous Affairs at a time when it could not be more important? It
diminishes the role of his backbenchers as well, who also have an important role
to play in governing. This bill does not offer anything new that is good. Is it
seen by government simply as streamlining because of their flatter, leaner
approach, or is it based on a deliberate, an absolute deliberate consolidation
of power? And if so, I believe that in fact this does not enhance relationships
with indigenous governments and indigenous groups within Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I would
hope that the right thing for this government to do is to halt this legislation
at this point and to have the consultation and discussions with Aboriginal
governments and Aboriginal groups before this bill goes any further. That's what
would improve relations with Aboriginal indigenous groups and governments.
Again, at a time when it is so needed because of what we see in areas of land
claims, in areas of large-scale developments, and how it affects indigenous
governments and groups in this province.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 4, An Act to Amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act.
As the
House Leader in his comments earlier, Madam Speaker, talked about the
Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs Secretariat being established in
February, and once there's a change in structure within departments, it takes
some amendments to the legislation. I think this is just more a matter of
housekeeping, but I do have a few comments.
I
listened to the Member for St. John's Centre talking about how this is not a
good thing, but I am indigenous, Madam Speaker. I am an Inuk from Nunatsiavut.
I'm a beneficiary to the Nunatsiavut government, and I talk about things that
are relative to government legislation and I spent a fair bit of time travelling
around in my district by snowmobile, talking to different people. When I asked
about the amendments to this legislation, to me, when you put intergovernmental
in with indigenous, I think it goes hand in hand.
I'd just
like to talk a little bit about it, Madam Speaker. When the negotiations were
ongoing for self-government with the Nunatsiavut Government, the former Labrador
Inuit Association, there were three levels of negotiation, two levels of
government and an Aboriginal entity that went on to become self-government,
which is another level of government. There were three levels of government.
This
legislation, when you look at intergovernmental affairs, talks about the
relationship with the Government of Canada, it talks about trade agreements, it
talks about relations with other provinces within our country, Government of
Quebec, Government of Alberta, Government of Prince Edward Island, Government of
Nova Scotia. It talks about the Government of Nunatsiavut.
Not only
that, Madam Speaker, within Labrador now we have three different Aboriginal
entities that are working towards a common goal, at three different levels of
negotiation. The first one is the Nunatsiavut Government which has negotiated a
Land Claims Agreement, and that Land Claims Agreement was negotiated with the
provincial government and the federal government. Now, if that's not a
definition of intergovernmental affairs, then we don't have one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
We also have the Innu Nation
that is negotiating the New Dawn Agreement. They have an agreement-in-principle,
so now they're negotiating with two levels of government, which is
intergovernmental affairs, towards a final agreement. We also have the
NunatuKavut on the South Coast that is still negotiating, getting to a framework
agreement.
So all
these negotiations involve three levels of government, Madam Speaker, and I'd
like to go back and look at the bill itself, An Act to Amend the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act. I think it's a big plus to include indigenous
affairs within the intergovernmental affairs department because it gives us a
hand-in-hand framework agreement. It sets the tone for intergovernmental
affairs.
We can
be very vague and we can say that intergovernmental affairs mean Newfoundland
and Labrador and Ottawa; or in terms of agreements with the Atlantic provinces,
we could be negotiating with the Government of Nova Scotia and, in fact, in
some degree, we are. We have to look a little bit further than that. We now have
another government within our province and that is the Nunatsiavut Government. I
think intergovernmental relations come forward to embrace that.
Not only
that, I think to include indigenous with intergovernmental will help the
framework agreement for New Dawn and down the road, it could very well play a
big role in negotiations with the NunatuKavut community, Madam Speaker.
So I
think this is a good piece of legislation. As the hon. House Leader said, it's a
certain part housekeeping but it do extend our ability to work with the
indigenous people of our province, which includes me, as well as dealing with
other government agencies. We're all linked hand in hand.
With
that, Madam Speaker, I will take my place and I urge all hon. Members to come
forward in their support of this because it gives us, as government to
government, a way forward with the indigenous people in our province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am
happy to stand now and close debate on this particular bill. I welcome and
appreciate the comments from my colleagues along the way, as well as the
commentary from my colleagues on this side of the House. I look forward to being
able to stand up during the Committee phase and answer any questions that may
arise.
Thank
you.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 4, An Act To Amend
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MADAM SPEAKER:
Oh, my apologies.
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker (inaudible).
MADAM SPEAKER:
Sorry, we're just moving
through the next reading before we go into Committee.
The
motion that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act 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.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act. (Bill 4).
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 4)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Madam Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 4.
MADAM SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM 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
now considering Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act. (Bill 4)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
ask the minister if, in fact, the Innu Nation was consulted on the consolidation
of this secretariat.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would
say that it's common practice for governments certainly this current one and
governments previously to not consult on structural changes made, especially
ones that are made on an administrative basis. What I can say, after talking to
the Premier and staff, is that many of the indigenous groups that the Premier's
office deals with are very happy to deal directly with the Premier's office
since he assumed responsibility for indigenous affairs, and that's the
commentary that we seem to be getting.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I, too,
acknowledge the importance of being able to address government to government,
nation to nation, and that that is a step forward for the indigenous government
and groups in Newfoundland and Labrador, but perhaps not so much in this manner.
So I
would ask: Was there any discussion or conversations at all with Nunatsiavut
Government over this particular move?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Hopefully, this answer will
answer the rest of the questions because I believe the Member opposite will go
down through the groups. There was no consultation because this was an
administrative change. It's administrative in nature. There's certainly no
change to engagement, absolutely.
So I can
put out the answer that there would not have been consultation on this
particular structural move because it's seen as administrative in nature. In
many ways, it's status quo in terms of how the engagement has happened in the
last 15 months.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
So, Mr. Chair, I would ask
that if it's status quo and no change at all in engagement we see that it's a
very different move from having a secretariat outside of Executive Council that
yet is accountable and answerable to Executive Council, to one that is totally
moved within Executive Council. How would that operate differently? I would be
interested. I would imagine the move was made because it would operate
differently.
For
instance, will there be any budget attached to this; and, if so, how will that
be identified and what would be the staffing structure?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you.
The
first thing I'll correct is that this was actually not outside of Executive
Council. It's always been inside. I would say even if it was outside certainly
the Premier in this case, who is responsible, is always answerable to the people
that they deal with, answerable to the people of the province.
So
again, I think this was a case of realignment. There's certainly a federal move
towards greater engagement with our Aboriginal populations, our indigenous
groups. We see that here as well. We throw in the trade policy as well, that
seems to be an increased so this really is an alignment here that's going on.
My
understanding is that this is structural. There will be no change, per se, to
how things have been happening. In a lot of cases when you talk about deputy
ministers, I think there's a change in name. One of the parts of the legislation
is that it's gone from being secretary responsible to Cabinet to deputy
minister. So there's a little change there, but it's not a change in function or
practice. That's my understanding. Certainly, there is no change in the
engagement part or the accountability side.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I
appreciate the answers from the Government House Leader. I guess when we look at
relationships, they are often about engagement and dialogue and discussion. I
hear when the Government House Leader says that this is an administrative move
that there wouldn't be consultation, but I find it interesting that when we have
contacted some of the indigenous governments, they were surprised by this and
wondered, and said we know nothing about it.
I would
ask again if one of the goals of this is to improve the relationship with
indigenous governments and groups, why there was no discussion at all. I can
appreciate that it's not consultation in that it's administrative. But is there
a rationale for not having any dialogue whatsoever or notification whatsoever to
indigenous governments and groups in the province?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
First thing I want to say, I
guess if I get an opportunity, is that in terms of engagement let's remember
that the Premier just addressed these groups in February at the Combined
Councils in Labrador, and actually I think there's a significant roundtable
coming up very shortly. So the minister responsible who is the Premier certainly
has an extended amount of engagement here.
The
second part, I believe this change has been in place now for over a month. There
have actually been no complaints none. In fact, the commentary regularly is
that the groups are very happy that the person they deal with is the Premier. So
they regularly express their happiness with this.
If there
are complaints about this, I would suggest that they deal with the minister
responsible who is the Premier who will certainly be happy to hear them, but I
can say that there have been literally, absolutely, no complaints on this change
because there's been no change to engagement none. There's been no change to
how they talk to each other, how they've interacted, how they've communicated.
All I
can say to anybody that is watching is that this truly is an administrative
change. You don't normally consult nor has been the practice, I think, of any
government that I'm aware of previously when it comes to an administrative
change of this nature, which would have no effect on the big issues that we are
dealing with in these groups when they meet. There's been no change. There's
been no complaint. So hopefully, that will continue on.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder
if the minister could just give some background in the transfer of the trade
component into the secretariat. The expertise and the general setup of the trade
division certainly play important work, and has for the province. Is that just
taken now and incorporated into the new secretariat?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Intergovernmental Affairs Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
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 bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I moved, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 4.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 4.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Madam Speaker, the Committee
of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report Bill 4 carried without amendment.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report the bill carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Madam
Speaker.
I move
further on the Order Paper to Motion 2. I would move, seconded by the Minister
for Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Remove
Anomalies And Errors In the Statute Law, Bill 5, and I further move that the
said bill be now the first time.
MADAM SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General shall have
leave to introduce a bill, Bill 5, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The
Statute Law, 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.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General to
introduce a bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,
carried. (Bill 5)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 5)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Madam
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 1, Address in Reply.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
It's a
wonderful opportunity and a privilege to be able to stand in Address in Reply to
the Speech from the Throne. I note what a fantastic address the Lieutenant
Governor gave us, to the province, and to Members of this Legislature. I
appreciate the fact that he is always, His Honour their Honours are always so
anxious and accommodating to appear before us. The content of the Speech from
the Throne as well did us a great honour, Madam Speaker. It reflected some of
the priorities that not only are within the government itself but, most
importantly, reflect the priorities of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would
be remiss if I did not recount and suggest as well that those priorities are
reflected within the people of Corner Brook, the historic and incredible
District of Corner Brook. Before I speak of those elements of the Speech from
the Throne, which I think will be of great benefit to those who I so proudly
represent, I would also like to reflect on some of the advantages and some of
the opportunities that are available to us through a great working relationship
with the federal government.
We just
discussed a little while ago some of the changes to intergovernmental affairs.
Well, Madam Speaker, as I reflect within my own Department of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour in just a very, very short while the relationship
with the federal government has been able to advance some significant priorities
that have been dear to me and to the government. For example, we have been able
to negotiate for the first time a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration
Agreement.
This, of
course, becomes the foundation to our future collaboration and partnership with
the federal government, addressing some of the needs of immigration and being
able to allow us the opportunity to expand our offerings. For example, as noted
in not only The Way Forward but
emphasized within the speech, we'll be looking at an entrepreneurial immigrant
investor program, as well as an investor immigration program and a graduate
student entrepreneur program.
We just
recently, not too long ago, signed the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
agreement on foreign credential recognition, which of course is very, very
important. So often have we heard the stories of those who come to us and come
to our shores who have skills in various professions and because their
credentials cannot be recognized or not easily recognized, they end up working
in occupations and circumstances which did not fully recognize the skill sets
that they bring to us. We're working hard and we should have further information
very shortly about some of the work that we're doing out of the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Foreign Qualification Recognition Agreement.
We just
came forward with an action plan on immigration, Madam Speaker, and this will be
of great benefit to our province because it signals a change in direction.
Instead of it just simply being a document exclusively directed at the
government itself, it recognizes that its employers in the province will have
one of the key roles, the key role, to play in attracting new citizens to
Newfoundland and Labrador and to Canada through our provincial nominee program.
So I
want to highlight those but now, if I can, I'd like to address some of the more
local issues to the people of Corner Brook, the great District of Corner Brook,
that our government has prioritized. I think my colleague, the Member for Humber
Bay of Islands, would also recognize some of the great work that's already
been done on the long-term care project and the hospital. We're indeed
recognized within our strategic priority for infrastructure.
Madam
Speaker, I don't think it has to be yelled too loudly for everyone in this
Chamber to recognize that this was a project that was announced in 2007,
incurred next to no advancement over the course of a decade. It took our
government, upon obtaining office and being elected, we brought the project over
the finish line and allowed it to be in a state, in a position, where we could
move forward. And what an innovation we did bring with the pilot project, with a
3P project, that delivered health care by public sector workers.
A very
important point to emphasize that while we sought innovation on the financing
and, in fact, innovation on the financing of the building, we provided not only
security and the costs of the build itself and the construction, but we'll have
certainty for 30 years as to its operational costs.
That,
quite frankly, is one of the real genius of the model that's provided here, but
the true genius as well. We're leveraging the private sector to help us and
enable us to deliver health care in the form of our capital asset, but when it
comes to the delivery of health care and the ancillary services in and around
the hospital that will be done by the public.
That's a
key difference. Not only the previous PC government were they unable the
former PC government was unable to bring these two projects over the finish
line, to be able to get it to a position where decisions could be made and it
could be brought to tender and brought to advance to an actual true construction
date, but their model, of course, was for private sector delivery of health
care, which was quite frankly not an acceptable point to the people that I
represent, nor should it have been to the government of the day at that point in
time. They did not heed that message, and of course they are where they are
today.
Madam
Speaker, one of the things also, in addition to, when you think about it, this
government was able to deliver on a multi, multi-million-dollar initiative to
provide better access, better quality health care to the West Coast. I also
would like to emphasize and repeat on behalf of my colleagues that additional
projects are pending for Central Newfoundland and for the East Coast of the
province.
There
are important projects that are currently underway that, again, because they
were left with an unsettled and no clear finish line, projects in Gander and
Grand Falls, and as well as in St. John's, these innovations will be very, very
important. I want to say how appreciative we are to our colleagues for advancing
this to the point where we'll be in a position soon to be able to speak further
to that.
In
Corner Brook as well, Madam Speaker, Corner Brook is noted it was established
some years ago to be the headquarters for agriculture and for forestry. I think
anyone in this province would see the common-sense logic to establishing both
the West Coast outside of downtown, St. John's to be the headquarters of
forestry activities, and outside of downtown, St. John's to be the headquarters
for agricultural activities.
Well,
there was a decision that was taken as well to put the headquarters function of
the lands offices on the West Coast to Corner Brook. That creates a certain
amount of synergy; there's a great common sense to that. When you have the
agricultural assistant deputy minister who's responsible for some of those key
departments, a key component to agricultural growth, a key component to forest
management, and the key component to a number of different initiatives,
especially dealing with our renewable natural resources, having the lands
offices in Corner Brook just simply makes sense.
It has
not been well received by Members of the Opposition. Certainly, they can defend
their positions on the West Coast at a future date. I wish them all the best of
luck in that, but what has been extremely well received is the notion that
strategic decisions, change is inevitable, change is an important component of
progress. The Opposition parties have decided that change is not warranted, that
status quo should prevail, that it would be totally acceptable to have the
headquarters functions of the lands offices and they would argue,
probably, that the headquarters of agricultural and forestry
activity should be in downtown, St. John's. Again, Madam Speaker, I'll leave
them to argue that point to the good people of the West Coast of Corner Brook at
a future date, if they so choose.
Now,
with that said, we're advancing with an agricultural program at Sir Wilfred
Grenfell campus. When you look at what's being developed to advance our
agricultural sector, it is quite significant. This move, this decision, by the
government to move the lands office was of critical importance to that.
We
already have five graduate students involved in agricultural research on the
West Coast through what's now an emerging growing field in boreal agricultural
cultural activities. Madam Speaker, it's going to be a great, great boost when
we look at our negotiations with the federal government, our discussions with
the federal government, on the Growing Forward on agricultural agreements.
Having the resources to be able to put that in play is going to be exceptionally
beneficial to us all.
In
addition to that, Madam Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic in Corner
Brook we are planning and preparing for many, many campuses throughout the
province. The Corner Brook campus has been designated as a centre for energy
studies. This is quite an achievement.
The
centre for energy studies, in particular for thermal energy and alternative
energy sources, this is going to be a major centre of excellence, which will
guide the progress from an academic point of view and from the skills training
capacity for the future of energy in our province. Key components will, of
course, be research in activities in transmission technologies, in solar and
wind energy, and thermal studies.
The
College of the North Atlantic in Corner Brook is currently the operative centre
for power engineering and we're expanding that to a third-class ticket as well,
much to the delight of those involved. They've received already their
fourth-class ticket and this is quite an achievement and very well received.
The
centre for energy studies, I think, is a great, great initiative that will lead
to economic benefits in the energy sector to the entire province, and notes the
fact that when you have as some of the key components of our natural resources,
our renewable resources, indeed being in other areas of the province, scattered
all over the province, having it connected to the College of the North Atlantic
means that this is not an institution, this is not an initiative directed solely
at Corner Brook or the West Coast; the footprint, the strategic locations of the
College of the North Atlantic throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador means
that this institution has the reach to be able to deliver to the entire
province. That is true of all the centres of excellence that we anticipate that
we're building for the College of the North Atlantic, using the aspect of a
campus being a regional hub, located in strategic locations, but having access
and the capacity to be able to reach to every sector, every corner of the
province, is a great news story.
It's
this government, Madam Speaker, that really realized that potential. So I'm
looking forward to developing the opportunities at the College of the North
Atlantic, but also developing particular initiatives such as the development and
support for our entrepreneurial community.
Newfoundland and Labrador is blessed with some fantastic entrepreneurs. Some of
the leading stars of our top entrepreneurs, our top corporate sector across the
entire country, of course, many of whom have had their roots in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We are blessed with a strong and vibrant entrepreneurial community.
What we are not necessary as blessed with, as we need to be, are supports for
our entrepreneurial community.
We are
changing that. One of the ways that we're doing it is reaching out to our
post-secondary institutions, such as Memorial University of Newfoundland and the
College of the North Atlantic province wide; again, using that model, using the
existence of a top-class, world-class university that we have in Memorial
University of Newfoundland, having a public college system which we are now
creating, we are encouraging it to be a top-class institution. It's incredibly
powerful in its own right, but still not functioning to its full potential. We
are changing that. We are bringing the College of the North Atlantic to be able
to function to its full potential, and part of that is the delivery of assisting
us and assisting the province in the delivery of entrepreneurial supports.
Just
this past weekend, I sat with a group of entrepreneurs for an entire weekend.
It's an initiative called Startup Weekend. It's hosted by the College of the
North Atlantic at Grenfell College and our joint facility; it's called the
Navigate Entrepreneurship Centre. What an incredible opportunity that was for
entrepreneurs to come together, not only with leaders in the academic community
but leaders from the Angel Investment community.
We were
delighted to have Mr. Bob Williamson from the Jameson Group who was there
participating in the start-up exercise. Of course, Mr. Williamson heads an Angel
Investment firm but a keen, keen promoter in start-ups. In his own capacity as a
facilitator and mentor, was a keen facilitator for the Pitch 101 exercises that
I attended not so long ago, but that's what we're doing, Madam Speaker.
We're
building up a core of business, a core of activities which were not previously
part of our college system or necessarily strong within our post-secondary
education environment. That is changing, and we're supporting our entrepreneurs
like never before, but we have more work to do. Stay tuned for that work to be
expressed in the next little while, Madam Speaker.
With
that said, there are some great important initiatives on the social sector as
well. We have a facility in Corner Brook known as Willow House, otherwise more
commonly known or more often known as the Transition House. That's been a
facility which has been neglected; neglected terribly so for well over a decade.
This government, Madam Speaker, is changing that. We're working with the federal
government.
My
colleague, the Minister and Member for Humber Bay of Islands, is a key
component of that initiative. There's a big investment coming to the Transition
House or Willow House in Corner Brook. That I think is worth noting because we
see that not only do we have to advance ourselves economically, but the benefit
of that.
By
creating that stability, by creating that framework for stability and growth,
economically we also create a much stronger social safety net. That's why this
has been such a difficult time for our government, for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, because after over a decade, for literally 13 years,
13 unlucky years, we had a government which, quite frankly, did not care about
the quality of the public purse. It simply spent; it simply spent
un-strategically. It simply spent for the sake of spending and put us in a
position where, yes, they will be able to say: well, we did this and we did
that, and don't you agree that this particular project is worthwhile? Are you
knocking this particular project?
Well, I
tell you, Mr. Speaker, what's more valuable than any individual project is an
environment where it can be sustained, where it can be held that we have
confidence, where we have structure to not only our economic growth but our
social growth as well. That is the jeopardy. That is the jeopardy that the PC
government put us into. They can rise to their feet and say, oh, they're playing
the blame game again. They're doing this or they're doing that, or they don't
like the project that we did back in 2009. They're speaking ill or they're
speaking negatively of the project that they wouldn't have done that project in
2011.
No, Mr.
Speaker, let's be very clear. Governments outlast us. We are temporary
custodians in this Legislature to the best interest of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We are temporary occupants. Each and every one of us, if we
understand our role, we have a responsibility to be larger and to be more broad
thinking and to be more clearly thinking than just simply the moment.
What
this government has done; what our government has done is examine and understood
the situation that we faced when we entered office on December 14, 2015. We
understood then, very clearly, exactly what the level of jeopardy this province
had been placed in and how uncertain our social fabric had been placed in,
because now we are in a situation where we were spending, as of that date, we
were spending $2.8 billion more than what we were taking in.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. BYRNE:
Two-point-eight billion
dollars annually more than what we were able to obtain in revenue.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, everyone in this Legislature, everyone in this province, everyone
understands that when you're spending that kind of a magnitude beyond your
means, it is only a short question of time before someone starts calling and you
are no longer in a position where you decide your own fate and your own future.
Someone else will be deciding it for you.
We took
a very deliberate position. It will be us, it will be the province, it will be
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
that retains, commands and
controls its own destiny.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
And the first order of
business is to do exactly that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. minister
that his speaking time has expired.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's an
honour to rise today to in Address in Reply. For those that are watching today,
we are following through on the incredible discourse and great speech that the
Lieutenant Governor gave, where he in detail, thoroughly and in a detailed way
laid out the plan of this government.
Mr.
Speaker, he emphasized a lot of the hope, a lot of the opportunity that lies in
this province. I thought it was very, very important that he took the time that
he did. It was a lengthy speech. It was I think an hour and 20 minutes, where he
really laid out not only at the beginning of the speech where he talked about
all the incredible things that are happening in our great province, and he
really laid out a congratulations again to Team Gushue, of course. They're
playing this week in the Worlds. I'm very happy to see that.
He
talked about some of those great successes we're having in the province today in
terms of the strength of some of our great athletes. We had a speech a little
earlier today where a Member rose on his feet to recognize the silver medal that
was won over the weekend in figure skating. We know of the great things that
have happened at Memorial University's curling team and the incredible success
of our athletes in the Special Olympics in the last little period of time.
So he
laid those out, Mr. Speaker, and I thought it was important that he start to lay
the fabric of the success, tenacity, strength of our people. Then he started to
talk about he relayed that strength, that tenacity, the good will of our
people, the strength of our people and turning it into some of the opportunities
that lie before us.
Mr.
Speaker, when the Leader of the PC Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition
rose to his feet, he started to talk about the fact that he thought we weren't
paying attention. We weren't paying attention to the problems in this province
and that's why we didn't realize how serious the fiscal situation was.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member opposite, and I say to all people in this
province, all of us in the province were concerned about the fiscal situation.
In fact, from very early days of the former administration and certainly during
the heyday of the former administration when we had peak oil and peak
production, annual report after annual report of the Auditor General, every
single year, Mr. Speaker, spoke of the fact that this province, while enjoying
the highest revenues that we ever seen in this province, we also were spending
way beyond our means.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the final year of the former Progressive Conservative government, they
told us we'd be $1.1 billion in deficit. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a huge number.
When this administration, when the Liberal administration took over we found out
that we weren't $1.1 billion in deficit. Just like throughout their entire time
in government, Mr. Speaker, that was an incorrect financial assumption. They
weren't $1.1 billion; they were close on $3 billion in deficit.
For
those listening, the difference in deficit and debt because people get
confused about this, Mr. Speaker deficit is what you run up in the one year.
That's how much you overspent in one year. It accumulates into debt over the
longer term. That's a simple way of describing it, but it kind of helps
understand when we say close on $3 billion in deficit, that's where they were
heading, because they overspent that much in one year.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I listened with intent in that speech, and I listened to some of the
revisionist memory, I call it, because it wasn't quite, it didn't quite lay out
the fabric of the situation that this province found itself in in December of
2015. It was a very difficult realization that this government had to come to,
that we were really in serious, very serious financial situation, that indeed if
we did not seize control of it we would not have control of our destiny.
Mr.
Speaker, when you really consider that we have to spend more in debt repayment
than we do on education, more on paying down our debt than we do on education, I
think that really rings true to people as to how serious the fiscal situation
is.
Now, I'm
responsible for the Department of Natural Resources, and part of the Department
of Natural Resources is being responsible for energy generation in this
province, being responsible for ensuring a stable, secure electrical system.
Now, when I came into my role as minister responsible for not only the electric
system, but also Muskrat Falls, Nalcor, I started to realize just how serious
the situation was and how out of control the project was.
We
brought in EY very quickly, Mr. Speaker; known as Ernst & Young, now calling
themselves EY, an internationally renowned accounting firm who reviewed the
project and said what the previous administration had told us in September and
remember this was December now I think it was over $7 billion, was now over $9
billion, was now that assumption wasn't correct. They gave us a series of
recommendations that we have been actively, actively working on.
This
administration has put in place a new senior executive, chief executive officer
named Stan Marshall, who many, I would say almost everyone in this province
would know from his success with Fortis. He's renowned internationally for his
experience in the energy sector. He's renowned internationally as being a very
credible, hardworking, dedicated CEO, and who knows how to put things right.
This
past week, Mr. Speaker, we had the annual general meeting of Nalcor. I'm going
to tell you some of the results of their past year, past successful year.
They're getting things under control. Really, in the last year we've been very
diligent, methodical. I often say inch by inch we'll get this project under
control, and that's exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Marshall is CEO. We have now an expanded, and I would say stellar board of
directors that bring incredible competence to Nalcor. It's headed by Brendan
Paddick, one of our I think my colleague had just said we are blessed with an
entrepreneurial spirit and strength within our business community, and I would
say Brendan Paddick leads that pack, Mr. Speaker. He is world renown as well.
Led by Brendan Paddick, 11-person board of directors, the largest board of
directors Nalcor has seen. So it gives depth, breadth, ability to have
committees and it certainly has been helpful.
So EY,
new CEO, world-class, world-class board of directors. Through the world-class
board of directors and our stellar CEO, we were able to negotiate with Astaldi,
something that had been outstanding for a couple of years, Mr. Speaker, where
the project was slipping behind schedule. Things weren't progressing well, and
our major contractor for the powerhouse was having a lot of challenges. We were
able to negotiate with Astaldi and finally get a deal with them.
We also
were successful in expanding the loan guarantee by the federal government and
saving the project an incredible amount of money. That's just being finalized
now, Mr. Speaker. It was announced in November that the federal government was
extending that loan guarantee. So it's outstanding that we were able to do that
in such a short period of time so methodically and diligently, and inch by inch.
You will
note that you would have heard in the last year some of the changes to the
project. Through the CEO and the board of directors we created a distinct
separation from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is a regulated utility,
and Nalcor's non-regulated businesses. We wanted to separate those.
We
followed through on some of the recommendations of the Liberty report. We're
making sure that the regulated businesses, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and
I'll come to some of the things they've been doing over the last while because
they're working very, I'll use the word diligently again, to make sure that the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a stable, secure electricity system.
We've
just come through a number of days of storms, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact,
it's been quite a stormy winter. I want to say thank you to Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland and Labrador Power for the work they have done.
They have been very in the harshest of conditions, they make sure that we have
electricity. I want to, on behalf of the people of the province, thank the
front-line workers but everyone in those two utilities that are getting things
done.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, through the CEO, the dividing of the management of the Muskrat
Falls Project into two separate components, transmission and power development
was very important. They are two big projects. If you consider the powerhouse
and the dam and the generation I call power development the generation side
of things from the transmission side, transmission of course of ensuring we have
access to the North American grid, and that work is underway. There are a
tremendous lot of regulatory requirements around being connected to the North
American grid. There was a lot of effort, a lot of work being done around
transmission. That's a project in and of itself, and of course the power
generation.
Also
this year, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor recorded revenues of $824.1 million, an increase
over the previous year. Operating profit for 2016 was $136.3 million, an
increase of $152.3 million over 2015. These are very, very positive signs that
things are getting under control.
The
Muskrat Falls Project, while many, many people in the province are very
troubled, this government is troubled by this project and why it was brought to
fruition, but, Mr. Speaker, we are containing, controlling and ensuring that it
is on track. That is what we set out to do, and we'll continue to be diligent in
our efforts to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't want to lose my time. Before I go on to some other bright
lights, besides the control and the benefits to the province of making sure that
Nalcor and the Muskrat Falls Project is on due course, I also want to talk about
oil and gas because the Lieutenant Governor in the Speech from the Throne did
reference oil and gas in talking about how our offshore oil and gas industry is
growing, is developing and what we're doing as a government to ensure it.
I want
to talk a little bit about the extensive geoscience that we've been doing. The
former administration started us down this path, so I would say to the former
administration that was a good initiative. It did give us some seismic
geoscience and it is bearing fruit for the province. This high-quality data on
the offshore prospects is getting worldwide attention. Our seismic program is
one of the largest in the world today, 2D seismic offshore. We have 145,000 line
kilometres of modern 2D seismic. We have well defined about 20 basins.
This is
to put this into perspective for those listening today. Right now, all the
projects that we have are in one basin; they are in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin a
very prolific and a very well-known basin. That is where Hibernia is; that's
where Hebron will be in this Jeanne d'Arc. We have other basins offshore, and we
want to continue to encourage and grow the development of our offshore oil and
gas industry.
In
August of last year and we will do this again, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward
we had an independent resource assessment, covering the area of what is called
the West Orphan Basin. So, for those that are listening, you have the Jeanne
d'Arc Basin, you have the Flemish Pass Basin the Flemish Basin and now you
have the West Orphan Basin. They've identified 25.5 billion barrels of oil in
that basin and approximately 20 trillion cubic feet of gas potential. Think
about that, Mr. Speaker. This isn't a new basin and we went out this year that
basin attracted global attention.
When the
land tenure was underway in November, we had a lot of interest. Since I've been
minister about seven new oil and gas entrants have come to Newfoundland and
Labrador and are doing more work in those basins to make their discoveries, and
we're very much looking forward to continued efforts to grow our offshore oil
and gas industry; $758 million committed in exploration this year. It was one of
the largest land tenures in the world today and especially in offshore. This
year, in 2017, there is work being done off the coast of Labrador and we're
looking forward to a land tenure in that area as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we have developed an oil and gas council that is working diligently,
that is really setting priorities to position the province as a preferred global
location for offshore oil and gas. We're working towards decreasing the time
from prospectivity to production. So if you look at Hebron, Hebron was actually
discovered in the early 1980s but is just now coming into production at the end
of this year. What we're working towards doing is decreasing that time.
We want
more discoveries being made and we want to quickly then get into production. So
we're working towards that end, Mr. Speaker. We're looking at innovations. We're
looking at making sure the regulatory environment is globally competitive. We're
making sure that everything that we're doing is encouraging more and more
benefit to the province and more and more growth in the sector.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't want my time to run out without talking about mining. This is
the third, what I'm going to say, major activity of the Department of Natural
Resources incredibly important to the province. We have over 7,000 people
employed in good, high-paying jobs in that industry and our shipments for the
next year, for 2017, is going to be $2.9 billion. We rank 16th in the most
attractive jurisdiction globally. So we're rising in terms of how attractive our
jurisdiction is in increasing the amount of work being done in the province.
I want
to talk about some of the mining initiatives in the province. IOC has just
announced that they're expanding their mine; that happened in February. They've
committed a $79 million investment to develop Wabush 3 Project. We've got Tata
Steel doing a high-grade iron ore project in Labrador's Northern Menihek region;
represents about a billion dollars a billion dollars in investment in the
area.
We've
got construction of the Long Harbour processing plant. It was completed in late
2016, but they're continuing to do their work. It employs about 500 people. When
it reaches full capacity, it will have about 50,000 tons of finished nickel.
Voisey's
Bay mine expansion project, we're starting to go underground at Voisey's Bay and
we're looking to go from open pit to underground mining set to begin in 2020 a
big investment in that area of 400 full-time positions. Canada Fluorspar is
underway, Mr. Speaker, and construction is expected to be carried out over the
next two years.
We've
got Rambler Metals and Mining doing great work; you've got Anaconda; you've got
Alderon, even looking at restarting their mining activities. Mr. Speaker, there
are great things happening in our mining industry. We're encouraging them, we're
working with them, and we're investing. The Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador supports the mineral industry through public geoscience. We go out
every summer, just like we do 2D seismic in our offshore, we do public
geoscience to make sure that we know what opportunities we have in our mining
industry. We do prospector training, we provide funding to support grassroots
prospectors and we do a mineral incentive program.
Mr.
Speaker, great things are happening in the province. We had to spend the last
year getting things under control, doing the due diligence, the work that needed
to be done to build that foundation, but the opportunities lie ahead. We've got
a great, strong, spirited people. We have plenty of opportunity in the oil and
gas industry, in mining, and in our energy sector.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me time to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Look at that; look at the
applause I'm getting here today.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to get up today and speak on behalf of the beautiful district
and the beautiful people in Cape St. Francis. I have to apologize to some of my
colleagues across the way because the last time I got up and spoke, a couple of
them took a couple of words really right to heart. I accused them of being
scared and being frightened in their district. They all got up afterwards and
they all said I wasn't scared I wasn't scared. It reminded me of my son and
daughter when they were little and they used to be frightened to death. I said:
Don't be frightened. And they always used to say: No, Daddy, I'm not afraid; I'm
not afraid.
So when
I heard the Members across the way get up and the very first thing that came out
of their mouth was the Member for Cape St. Francis, he accused us
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
of being afraid, and every
one of them got up it was so funny to watch it because it brought back good
memories of the childhood of my children they weren't afraid either. I
understand; you weren't afraid. No, you weren't, so don't worry about it.
Mr.
Speaker, it was interesting now to get up today and to follow two ministers. I
always enjoy the Throne Speech; I really do. The Throne Speech is about
direction. It's about what government plans to do in the future. There's not a
lot of information in the Throne Speech and I've been here for I think this
was my eighth Throne Speech now and they're all similar. They're all about the
direction that government sees themselves going in. But this one in particular,
I understand a lot of things that are there, but I don't see any direction and I
don't see any plans.
The
Minister of Natural Resources got up before me and she talked, that people have
hope. She must be living in a different place than I'm living in because the
people that I talk to have very little hope, but they're looking for it. They
want a way to have hope. They want to be able to see something in the future
that gives them hope. Again, I don't know where they're going to get it to, I
really don't.
I know a
budget's coming this week, and we know what happened with last year's budget.
The whole province, everybody was in there were protests outside, there were
people just devastated by what was happening here in this province and the cuts
they did. Most people said it's too much, and most people realized the financial
situation we found ourselves in. Most people did, but when you talk to seniors
or you talk to people that are on fixed income, and talk to young families and
talk to anybody, students, everybody in this province.
Everybody was affected by last year's budget, and affected in a big way. A young
person's car insurance. It could be a senior with over-the-counter drugs. It
could be a student wanting to buy a book. There were so many different things.
I'm going to talk a little bit about them once I get into my speech here today,
but those were the things.
Two
ministers got up and talked about hope. I'm hoping I'll tell you want I'm
hoping. I'm hoping this is going to be a great budget. I'm hoping there'll be
some relief for the people in this province. I'm hoping that what people expect
is what they're going to get. They expect good governance, they expect them to
be taken care of, and they don't expect the burden to be put on their shoulders
all the time.
We look
at different statistics that are coming out. One that I'm hearing a lot of, and
it's a big concern to me, it's 30,000 less jobs in a province of 500,000 people.
That's unbelievable. That's unbelievable when you think about it.
I'm
going to speak a little bit about the fishery now in a few minutes. The
devastating what's happening there, I don't know if those 30,000 jobs are
included in what's happening today with cuts and what happened last week with
cuts. What's this going to do to our communities?
People
look to government to give them hope, to lead the way to make sure their lives
are better. We can talk about what happened five or six years ago, we can talk
about what happened two years ago. People what to know what's happening to them
today. I talk to families all the time, and they're concerned. They're concerned
that this government has absolutely no plan for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Absolutely no plan in place
for their future. Whether it's a grandparent who's concerned about their
grandchildren, it's a parent concerned about their child, or a child concerned
about their parents. People want to see hope. People want to see a plan and they
want to see things getting done that make their lives better. Not to be unfair;
all we hear from this government across the way every day the Premier gets up
and talks about doubling the electricity rates.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Terrible.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It is absolutely terrible.
It's so terrible the people that's fearmongering with the people, when they
know the difference. There are ways to get these rates down. They know it, but
they're not going to tell the people that because they're going to try to come
in with the big hero thing and say, listen, oh we saved you. Well, they're not
going to say why do that to people today? That is mean. That is mean to do
that to people. To put fear in people, it's absolutely mean. I can't believe
you're doing it. You don't need to do that. Be truthful with the people.
People
want you to be truthful with them. So if you know down the road, listen, there
are all these little things we can do to reduce your rates and we're going to do
it. That's what people want to hear. They want hope, but you give them
absolutely no hope; absolutely no hope at all.
This
government has been in power for 17 months, and I've yet to see what the plan is
for the people of this province. I've yet to see what your plan is for this
whole province and what you're going to do about the jobs that are going to be
lost. The 30,000 jobs you talk about, that you actually talk about and say there
are 30,000 less jobs going to be in the province, have you got a plan to get
these 30,000 jobs so we don't lose them?
You
always talk about the great relationship. The Minister of Advanced Education got
up today and talked about the great relationship that your government got with
the feds. Yet, that same minister, when he was in the federal government, was
the saviour. He was the captain of the Marine Atlantic. Every time they did
something wrong at all, if they increased anything, he was the first fellow he
was on the NTV news, the CBC news, VOCM
Open Line talking about rates.
Last
year the rates went up and we never even heard tell of him. He never even got up
and said one word about it. I don't know why. Because when he was up in Ottawa,
that's the only time I saw him on the news every evening. If the rates went at
all he was up talking about it, but he's not talking to his cousins now when the
rates go up. Why not?
I'm
going to just switch to a couple of my portfolios that I'm critic for; I want
to talk a little about them here today. Municipal Affairs is one of them.
Recently, government announced they are not going to do the cost ratios anymore
like they were with the 90-10, 80-20 and the 70-30.
Now, I'm
a former mayor of a small community, and I can tell you let me tell government
that I do agree that waste water and clean drinking water should be a priority.
I agree with you, okay, 100 per cent on that. I spoke to mayors and councillors
all over this province and they agree with that also, but they also have other
issues in their municipalities.
I'll
give you an example now. I got a community in my district that did up they had
a five-year plan on their roadwork. So last year they started the roadwork. They
picked out the three or four worse roads and next year they plan on doing the
same thing. They set out a five-year plan on 80-20 funding. That plan on 80-20
funding, they're willing like, if some year they don't get it and some year
they do, so be it, but they have a plan. They told their residents, this is how
we're going to do it and we'll do it over five, six years, whatever it takes. So
that whole plan is gone out the window, because the funding that was there for
80-20 now is gone to 50-50.
What
that means on a municipality with $100,000 worth of work, they had to get
$20,000. Now they have to get $50,000 to do 50-50. I don't think that
government, and I don't think the department I'm surprised that I saw
representatives from MNL there at the table, because I looked and I talked to
mayors. I talked to councillors. I read the paper and I saw what came out in
all the mayors from Botwood to Flower's Cove, to St. Anthony, to Corner Brook,
to Pouch Cove, to Torbay were all against it. They said, no, we don't want this.
We'd rather the way it was. We understand the funding mightn't be there like it
was but we'd rather go with the way it was because it will give us a chance to
get our priorities out, and they understood.
They
understand there's only so much money. If government wants to say this is the
priority we're going to look at with clean water, so be it, but give us a chance
to go in and give our case why we need examples. It could be we need a new
community centre, maybe the old community centre like I had a community in my
district, the community of Bauline, they used to have their town meetings in the
United Church. If anything came up in town they had to go down to the United
Church. Their town council office was a small apartment they rented. Now they
have a nice, beautiful new building and doing fantastic. This summer there are
weddings there. There are all kinds of activities. It's booked solid, and it's
great for the community. It brings the community together.
There
are other things, like fire equipment. I can remember also when I was mayor of
Flatrock I'll always remember this one we applied for a fire truck. There
were only seven applications in that year because the funding was 50-50 and most
municipalities couldn't afford it. They couldn't afford the cost a fire truck
then, I think, was $240,000, so they couldn't afford the $120,000. We went and
we looked at it and said, listen, we're going to go with it. In two years' time,
they changed it. I could be corrected, but I think the applications went up from
seven to about 50. It gave small municipalities all over this province an
opportunity to apply for something that they needed in their town. Now you're
gone back to cutting that again and people won't be able to apply for it.
It's
stuff like bunker suits and equipment that they need. I mean, we can't live
without the volunteers we have in our province. Our volunteers are the best
around. We have more volunteers than anywhere, and we need them. We need them to
survive. Mr. Speaker, there's only one taxpayer. No matter if we do it
municipally or we do it provincially or we do it federally, there's only one
taxpayer.
Today, I
really want to talk a little bit about the fishery. Last week when the cuts came
down on the shrimp and most people knew they were coming. The harvesters and
the processors and the plant workers had an idea they were coming; never thought
they'd be as devastating as they were.
I know
that people wanted to see some way of phasing it in; maybe not go with such a
bang all of a sudden. I listened to a shrimp fisherman one evening on CBC and he
didn't agree with the science. He said that the science should have consulted
with harvesters. What he was saying was he was fishing in Area 6 and his first
couple of trips that he had he had two boats were the best that he'd ever
seen, was the best catches that he had seen.
So I
think that's important. Maybe with the change in temperatures in water there,
only last week, we saw pictures of a seal and you know what I'm talking about,
Mr. Speaker with a 181 female crab in it and two oversized crab. That same
fisherman, because I called him and spoke to him, told me there are buckets of
shrimp in our seals.
So are
we doing anything? Are we planning anything? We don't really know I don't
think anybody knows what the real impact seals have on our fishery. I believe
it's something that we should be working with the federal government and with
our harvesters to understand that.
I spoke
to fishermen in my district today and in 3L crab is going to cut by 26 per cent.
That's devastating to the harvesters. It's more so devastating to the plant
workers because it's less crab that they got to be able to process.
I
understand, talking to fishermen this weekend, that the price of crab is looking
good this year, which is really great because at this time they need something
very positive. I understand also, something I read this morning, that the price
is going to be over $4 a pound, which is good for the harvesters but the problem
here is plant workers. We got 26 per cent less crab, because 3L is the largest
area, that it's going to go to our plant workers. So what does this mean?
If you
looked with the shrimp last week, we had one plant owner, or I think he is a
manager of a plant actually and it's one of the biggest ones in the province
saying all his plant is going to get is six days a week, he will be able to do
it for five weeks, and one shift, where normally they have two shifts on all the
time.
This is
devastating for rural Newfoundland. It's devastating for every place. We don't
know yet what effect it's going to have on the different plants right across
this province. I tell you, this is huge. The news we've heard this week is as
bad to the fishery as what it was when the moratorium came in. It really is.
It's going to be hard, because what we are talking about and again, the
Minister of Fisheries got up the other day when we talked about the
revitalization of cod, we talked and I've asked questions before about the
advisory council that was supposed to be set up. It was in his mandate letter
since day one, 17 months ago. We got a chair but we don't have a committee in
place yet, and this was supposed to be able to make us adapt we need to
transfer from shellfish to groundfish and this is not done.
The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the communities in Newfoundland and
Labrador that have plants and the fishermen and the harvesters I got brothers
that are involved in this. I've got friends that I speak to on a weekly basis.
This is devastating times in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador and we
need action; we need a plan; we need a strategy; we need something in place.
When the
shrimp came out last week, we knew that in Area 6, when the science was done,
that they showed a decrease in 62 per cent of biomass. So we knew there was
going to be a reduction there. The Minister of Fisheries said last week he's
going to give the federal minister a call. He said he supported what the FFAW
said that they should phase it in over a couple of years. But he also knew that
this was happening, the science came out months ago, so why wait until they do
the quota cut to say okay, I'll go up and talk to them now. That doesn't make
sense. It doesn't make sense when it affects so many people, when it affects so
many communities in our province.
Again,
I'd love to see the quota on the cod. I believe and I know, talking to
harvesters and people in the know, that they understand the cod fishery is not
going to come back to what it was before. But what's the plan? Is there any
marketing being done? Is there any investigation on where the markets are to?
What are other countries doing? What's Norway and Iceland doing with the market
of their cod? They're putting their cod into the US market, but we got no plan.
We got no plan whatsoever. We're going to say oh, let somebody else do it.
A couple
of weeks ago, I went up to the Marine Institute and a big announcement half
the Members over on the other side were up there. They all were there and there
was, I think, three or four federal MPs there. They all got up and talked about
curling and everything else. It was a love-in like you couldn't believe, but
they announced a $100 million fund. Mr. Speaker, there's no details. There's
nothing.
Minister
Foote talked last week about DFO making some decisions on it. There are
absolutely no details. MP Nick Whalen said he's not even sure what it is. He
doesn't know if it's more or less, or whatever it is. He doesn't know what it
is. He said I don't know what they're going to do with it.
But
today, we're in this province with plant workers, harvesters and processing
looking for answers. It was last week that the shrimp was cut. It's today that
the crab got cut, with absolutely no plan for the people of this province. No
saying listen, this is what we're going to do.
I'm not
arguing with science. I won't argue with science, but I think science plays a
role, just like harvesters play a role. I remember listening to my father and he
could tell me a few things about the fishery, because they knew it. Just like
our harvesters today know about what's happening in the water, and they should
be consolidated. DFO, science and what's on the ground should be talking and
saying okay, this is how it's happening.
I
listened to a harvester, like I said, who went to Area 6 this year, caught
shrimp, and said it was one of the best years he had. They came early,
apparently. I talked to crab fishermen in my area this year that had their best
catches in crab last year. Now, yes, I talked to other fishermen that, over the
200-mile limit, it was unbelievable. The trips that they had normally with
40,000 and 50,000 pounds of crab, they were coming in with 3,000 or 4,000 pounds
of crab absolutely no crab there. I got no problem with that at all, but when
it came to the inshore and inshore that was, I think, eight miles off there
were lots of crab.
So is
DFO talking to these people? Is our government talking to these people? It's
time that we get up and represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
especially in our fishery. Don't just let Ottawa say this is the way it's going
to be; represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand for a few minutes. I wasn't planning on speaking, but when I
heard the Member talking about the cost-shared ratios and what we're doing to
municipalities, I had to get up and justify why MNL is supporting this; justify
why there are some towns upset, no doubt; but justify what our priority is as a
government.
I have
to say to the Member: Do you know why MNL is supporting some of this? MNL, if
you speak to them, it is the best working relationship they had in 12 years,
with any government that's been in for 12 years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
We consult with them. I can
tell you what we won't do. I absolutely agree there are some towns that are
upset about the road cost-shared ratio. There are ways we're trying to mitigate
that. But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, from a person who is from a
rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador, the district is a rural part of
Newfoundland and Labrador, we had a priority. This government had a priority.
Their priority was take a dollar, get a federal dollar, put it into water and
waste water, or let's put the roads program on a 50/50 basis until we can get
more funds.
I'll
tell you why. I ask anybody in this province and I ask anybody on this side of
the House of Assembly that I spoke to, and I could ask Members over there were
talking to me privately: What would you rather have? To get federal money,
dollar for dollar, to get asbestos out of pipes, or try to delay your roads
program for one year? It's an easy decision. It's an easy decision. I know the
Member is over there shaking his head. It's an easy decision for us very easy
decision.
I can
tell you what we won't do, Mr. Speaker and I was flabbergasted by the
comments. I heard other Members over there also; I was flabbergasted. In 2015,
do you know what they did? That government, those people over there sitting over
there now, there are one, two, three, four, five of them, six of them that were
part of it do you know what they did? Left $34.6 million of federal
money on the table; wouldn't sign the agreement. And there are people around
this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with asbestos in their pipes, with no
water and sewer, and half that crew now is asking me for the same funds they
wouldn't even deliver. And now we're getting criticized because we're getting a
priority for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just let the Members opposite know that the vast majority
of money that was spent last year was on water
and waste water the vast majority. The rest of it was split up between
buildings and roads. I'll give you an example of how we're helping out towns
with roads; I'll give you a good example. You mentioned one there, the mayor of
Bishop's Falls I think; I'll give you the email he wrote me. Anybody who doesn't
think the cost-shared ratio should change must be living in another planet; that
was the email he wrote me. That's the email he wrote me. He said as for the
cost-shared 50-50 for the roads do you know what he said? Just make towns to
sharpen the pencil better. I'll show it to you after. That's exactly what he
wrote me.
So when
you get out in the media with things but the actual comments that are being made
to us, to me personally and I heard the mayor of Bishop's Falls and I don't
mean to be picking on the mayor of Bishop's Falls; I know him. But I heard his
comments he made. He said the business people are going to be upset because
there's not going to be as much work in Bishop's Falls this year. I'll just let
the mayor know and let the Opposition know also because it is very important to
make statements that were made not just today but in the last little while
last year there was about $225,000, $250,000 maybe on roads. This year, Bishop's
Falls: $1.3 million in water and waste water. That's the difference. That's what
happens when you leverage the federal money. I make no apologies for leveraging
federal money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I'll tell you another thing,
Mr. Speaker, what I won't do. I won't do it. If we're going to make a decision
and I'm glad the caucus supports me on it because I did push for the priority of
water and waste water because I saw a lot of towns without water, a lot of towns
with asbestos in the pipes. I tell you one thing we won't do. One thing we won't
do, Mr. Speaker, is what this government did the year before they left. I say to
the Member for Cape St. Francis, you weren't in Cabinet. I'll tell you what they
did.
They
went out with a three-year, $20 million per year funding for capital works. Do
you know what they did? Spent it all in two years. In 2015, they put out the
applications and it's all on file; I can show it to you. I know the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island is laughing his head that's all right;
people with asbestos aren't laughing. People with asbestos who can't drink the
water, they're not laughing. We're trying to help people. You can laugh as much
as you like.
Mr.
Speaker, do you know what they did? They spent all the money. In 2015, they sent
out all the applications to say put your application in and there wasn't one
penny to spend. Now if you expect me to let municipalities go out and put an
application in saying it is going to be 90-10 roads and then change it halfway
through, it ain't my style.
If I'm
going to do something upfront, I'm going to do it upfront and I'm going to say
here's the reason why we got to do it and I apologize for doing it but we made a
priority. We, as a government, made a priority. The priority is water and
wastewater, and we stick to it. This government refuses to put an application
out with false information that's not going to be beneficial to the towns.
Because when they put the application in, they will say it's 90-10, and then end
up being 50-50. We are being honest with the people.
Mr.
Speaker, they brought up a lot of things. Here's one of them. I'm just trying
the find the notes that I had here about the I made a Ministerial Statement
today and it was the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Workshop. I could see where
the government is coming from. I can honestly see and I thank the Member for
Cape St. Francis for being so kind today because they are great people.
I will
tell you something, here's the difference between this government and that
Opposition when they're in government. Clean and Safe Drinking Water Workshop,
take a guess in 2012, no-show; no minister showed up to it. In 2013, no-show;
no minister showed up to it. In 2014, no-show. In 2015 so you can see where
their priority is at, Mr. Speaker. You can see why that we, as a government,
said water and wastewater is a priority.
We will
try the best that we can with the help of the federal government to try to give
clean, safe drinking water to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the
residents which are asking, which the Members opposite I'm going to say this.
I'm not going to name any Members. There hasn't been one Member on the opposite
side that hasn't asked for clean, safe drinking water. Not one. Do you know how
many asked for roads? Zero. So when they stand up there as an Opposition and
talk about we have roads as our priority zero asked for roads.
So when
you want to say that we are doing the best we can with the money we had, I have
no problem saying that we made the priority. When people stand up and say, well,
the amount the money is being spent
AN HON. MEMBER:
And MNL agrees.
MR. JOYCE:
And MNL agrees, because they
understand the priority. They understand what people are without water and
wastewater. They understand when the water towers need to be replaced. Do you
know something? Mr. Speaker, $209 million is being spent this year $209
million. Plus, there is another fund that they are going to apply for, Small
Communities Funds. Another $30 million they can apply for. Over the next three
years, $580 million with the help of our federal counterparts in Ottawa, Judy
Foote and all the MPs in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
And we stand to be criticized
for all this. Be criticized for giving clean, safe drinking water
AN HON. MEMBER:
And getting federal money.
MR. JOYCE:
and getting federal money
dollar for dollar when they're leaving $34.6 million on the table. Do you know,
Mr. Speaker, how many houses or how many communities that could service in
Newfoundland and Labrador if they had to have signed it? Do you know how many?
Just
think $34.6 million for rural Newfoundland and Labrador which they never availed
of. They didn't have time to sign the letter to send up to try to match the
funds, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine that? I know, Mr. Speaker, it's
unimaginable. I agree with you, it's unimaginable that a government would be so
irresponsible to do that.
I just
want to let the people know the stuff we're doing to help out towns, and I
understand. This 50-50 hasn't been around in 20 years, by the way. It only came
by in about 2008, I think it was, when the big oil 2007 for some, 2008 when it
became 50-50. That's when the big oil boom came up and that's when they were
flush with cash, Mr. Speaker. Instead of being honest with the residents at the
time, do you know what they did, a $2.8 billion deficit, Mr. Speaker a $2.8
billion deficit.
It's
easy to say look what we did 90-10 when the oil boom was on, but look where
we're at today, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to put in programs but they have to be
sustainable. They have to be sustainable. You just can't take a program and put
it in because everybody is going to like us, but our grandkids and kids down the
road will have to pay for it, Mr. Speaker. That is the irresponsible way. The
responsible way is here's what we can work with, here's our priority and here's
how we're going to deal with it.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to say with MNL, we have a great working relationship with MNL.
Do we always agree? Of course not, but we work on the best solutions that we can
for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, then look at some of the situations we're facing right now. This is
what boggles my mind. If I was part of a decision and the decision was the wrong
decision, you turn around and you say, well, hold it now. How could I have made
it right, instead of just criticizing the wrong decision? The deputy premier
bloated government, that is kind of on us. That was the deputy premier of the
province. The deputy premier of the province made that statement.
Mr.
Speaker, I know I only have a few minutes left, and I got to speak I heard the
Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Topsail, he stood in his chair and he
was talking about the current Premier. He said I never met his father. He
said, my dad said if you say something, your word should be a bond. Your word
should be a bond. I see some Members shaking their heads. I bet his dad didn't
bring up about the hospital and long-term care because he never kept his word to
the people of Western Newfoundland. So how hypercritical, Mr. Speaker, to stand
up and say your word got to be your bond.
I can
show you on six different occasions when the hospital and long-term care was
supposed to start in Corner Brook, and guess what? It never started, and he has
the audacity to stand up and say to the current Premier, well, your word is your
bond. Of course, that doesn't mean hospitals and long-term care obviously. That
don't mean hospitals and long-terms care, because I tell you, I lived through
that. I fought for that, and I know the Member for Corner Brook fought for that,
and I know the Premier fought for that. We had support of the caucus.
There's
going to be more done in Central and the Waterford, Mr. Speaker. Do you know
why? Because we had to get our fiscal house in order, and when we get our fiscal
house in order we start making priorities. We won't be doing things haphazard on
the back of an envelope. When they looked for the $5 billion infrastructure
program, even the Auditor General couldn't find it, so how are the residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador going to know how it was spent.
I just
have to let people know, we are trying to help out towns with the roads in a
different cost-shared ratio. I'll give you an example. The Department of
Transportation has helped to piggyback on some tenders. So when there's a bigger
project right in a certain area of the province, if there are smaller tenders
that can be added on to it, it would save the cost of mobilization and
demobilization. That's the kinds of things we're working on.
We're
working also with the federal government to see what we can do next year for
money for roads. This is a temporary measure we're working on. I make no
apologies, Mr. Speaker. When I go to Lark Harbour, not one house in Lark Harbour
in the Humber Bay of Islands is on water or sewer, not one house. I make no
apologies for making that a priority.
I can go
across this whole House and pick out areas where we need water and waste water,
Mr. Speaker. I make no apologies for taking that money and matching it with the
federal government. I'd stand up for anybody who has asbestos pipes and try to
help them to make sure they have clean, safe drinking water.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
The Town of Irishtown
Summerside, Mr. Speaker, still has a boil order advisory on. Do I make an
apology because I can get money from the federal government to help with this
boil order advisory and get clean, safe drinking water? Of course not.
The City
of Corner Brook, water separation, sewer separation, do I make apologies that we
can get the funds from the federal government that otherwise would never be done
to fix the bridge on Main Street in Corner Brook? I could go through each part
of this district here, all throughout here and in Members' opposite and even
the Members' opposite, Mr. Speaker, because I could tell you thing, they'll
stand and say one thing but when we chat, the letters say completely opposite.
I'm not
here to criticize; I'm just here to defend what we did. If we wanted to be
dishonest we would have sent out the application saying 90-10 roads. When it
comes back: oh, we made our decision. It's going to be 50-50 now. Sorry.
I
refuse. If I'm going to stand up in front of a town council and if I'm going to
take any abuse because of the decisions I made, at least they are going to
respect me for making the decisions. They may not like the decisions I made but
they'll respect me because that's the decisions we had to make. Some will agree
with it, some will disagree with it, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I will
make that decision.
I can
tell you, when we spoke to caucus and we said to caucus here's the decision we
have to make. Do you know what they said? I'd rather have someone drinking safe
drinking water without asbestos and have a two-year road program instead of a
one-year program; especially on two things, Mr. Speaker, when we can tap into it
dollar for dollar with the federal government.
The
majority of the money that was spent here in Newfoundland and Labrador was on
water and was on waste water, Mr. Speaker. If any of them wants to know the
facts, come over. I'll break it down for you, not a problem. This is not us
against them. This is trying to ensure we're given a priority for the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is water and waste water. The federal
government, I have to say, came onside. They stepped onside and they're
remaining onside, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you why. They understand the needs
of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They understand the needs of it all.
Mr.
Speaker, I can go on, on many occasions about and I know the three-year
multi-year program, Mr. Speaker, that came out. I'll just give you an example.
Some towns may have gotten a bit less but they can apply for more funds. The
majority of money, the three year multi-year, I'll just give you an example of
how much better off they're going to be. The numbers are a bit small, so I have
to use my glasses, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll just use the one in Lewisporte. This year, because of the funds
they got, we leveraged, will be up over $3 million than what they would have had
if we just had to go with the three year capital works, three year multi-year
program. Because we leveraged federal money so they can have more for what their
priorities are in the town.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll just go to Placentia, over $4 million more; Paradise, $2.5 million
more. Just look at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, $16 million more; Grand
Falls-Windsor, $6 million more; Gander, with the treatment centre they needed,
sewer treatment centre they needed for the school. Gander this year, because we
leveraged federal money, will be in more money, $20 million more this year than
they received and we're being criticized.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
And we're being criticized. We're being criticized because we're not tapping
into the federal money.
Mr.
Speaker, I can keep going here. Conception Bay South, $3.3 million more. And
they got the audacity to stand up and say you should have cut the roads. Yeah,
we had to make a decision, but look at the extra funds. This is out of 22
multi-year capital works programs in towns.
We can
go across; I can go through ever district here, every district. We received more
money than they received in a number of years because of the Canada program with
the federal government, the Canada build fund. More money than they had in
memory, spent in towns, the Building Canada Fund.
Mr.
Speaker, Bay Roberts is getting over $1 million more. I could keep going here. I
said Grand Falls-Windsor is getting $6 million more; Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
Corner Brook is getting $4 million more. So that's the priority we made.
If you
wanted to take all this money, if you wanted to take the $580 million and pick
out one little bit of it and say that's bad. You can do it. You can absolutely
do it, but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when this government stands up
on capital works, and as long as I'm in this position, lucky enough to be in
this position, I will not mislead towns. I will not put an application out, let
them fill out the application, and then three months later say: oh, by the way,
we just changed your cost-share ratio. I will not put an application out like
the previous government did and say: oh, by the way, we have no money in that
program. We already spent it two years prior because an election year was coming
up.
If you
want to talk about being honest, if you want to talk about the leader who
happened to be premier, the Member from Topsail talking about your bond is your
word. When you put out the applications for all the towns in the province and
say send it in, we need it by November 15 not one cent there. Your father must
not have mentioned about capital works. He must have forgotten about hospitals,
long-term care and capital works.
What
that government did to the towns of this province, Mr. Speaker, was unacceptable
and we refuse
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
to be part of that, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I love getting this applause
when I stand up, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista, that the
House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 in the afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.