June 2, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 9
The House met at 10 a.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are
the House Leaders ready?
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 7.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, that the Member for Lake Melville be appointed Deputy Chair
of Committees.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that the Member for Lake Melville be nominated for the Deputy Chair of
Committees.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
P.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's always great to be in the House of Assembly. I
would like to say, to start with, to be elected the second time – I know the
first election was short; it was two years. To be re-elected for the second time
by the people of Exploits, it's really an honour. It's an honour to be here.
I would just like to congratulate everyone else for
being re-elected and elected to this House of Assembly. It's been a privilege
and an honour to be here, to sit in and talk about the things in our district,
talk about the cares we need, the things that people need and the addresses that
they need put forward. It's really a privilege to be here, Mr. Speaker.
During the election, again, this year, lots of times
you hear the same problems, the same issues. Health care, of course, is the
first and foremost in my district, in the Central region. It's been a big issue
and still remains a big, big issue. Of course, I can't miss the 24-hour
emergency service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre. Mr. Speaker, I've
heard it all throughout the elections. This is three times now that the 24-hour
emergency service has been beat around in our district. It was promised in 2019.
It was committed to for 2021. During the election now in 2021, again, there was
even an announcement made that the 24 hours would be reinstated in June. The
people of Exploits are really looking forward to that announcement because it's
really an issue to them.
I didn't see anything in this budget for the 24-hour
emergency service to be reinstated. Why does government keep making promises and
making election issues, but then don't carry out with their promises? It makes
me only believe that they're just trying to get a seat in government, basically,
rather than trying to do something. It's horrible; it's terrible that people are
treated like that.
Mr. Speaker, they're really looking forward to the
24-hour emergency service being reinstated in Botwood. It takes a lot of
pressure, a lot of – the stories that I've heard with regard to that 24-hour
emergency service, people from the outlying area, Leading Tickles, Fortune
Harbour, have an hour's drive just to get to Botwood on a normal day. Put in bad
weather, stormy conditions and you can put that to two hours probably – from one
hour to two hours – to get to the emergency service. Somebody with bad health
conditions – a heart attack, whatever – every minute counts. To force people to
drive an extra, I've heard a half-hour, from Botwood to Grand Falls-Windsor
then, on a stormy night, bad conditions – no, forget it. You can't do it. If you
can, you're endangering lives even more.
Mr. Speaker, that 24-hour emergency service, it's time
for the government to commit, reinstate it and do as promised in the elections.
Not just using it as political issues, political ploys but come good on their
promises and let's get that reinstated. That is still a big issue in the
Exploits District and it certainly needs to be addressed.
Also in health care, Mr. Speaker, the home care. I've
heard from some of the seniors that the dental programs and the eyeglass
programs, they have to pay more. They need dental work; there's nothing there
for them to avail of. Some of the home care services – it's stressed that they'd
like to see seniors stay in their home longer.
During the election, I was talking to one lady who was
92 years old. She said that she still feels good but really can't afford to stay
in her home. Back in 2016 her subsidy was cut. She was staying in her home, I
think her subsidy was around $119, she was telling me, but she was receiving the
benefit. When the benefit was cut, then they increased her contribution. So it's
costing her almost double to stay in her own home than what it was before and
she just can't afford to do it.
She has heat – I visit her periodically just to see how
she's doing. You go in there in the wintertime and she has the heat down. You'd
almost freeze to death when you walk into her porch. It's terrible to see
seniors being treated like that, because she can't keep warm. I know friends and
family bring meals to her at times.
To treat a senior like that who is well up there in
age, more than capable of staying in her own home – more than capable – and to
have to pay the dental cost, the eyewear cost, and then increase subsidies for
home care, it just doesn't make sense. Those are the issues and problems that
I've been hearing in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure we have them all
across the province. If we're going to keep seniors in their own homes, we
better start looking out for the seniors so that they can stay in their own
homes and feel warm, comfortable and be attended to. That certainly needs
attention.
Mr. Speaker, tourism in our district; it's an amazing
district, we've got tourism galore just starting now. Of course, June 1, the
salmon is just starting to hit the river in Bishop's Falls, and I'm starting to
think I'd like to be there myself, but, anyway, that does bring a lot of people
to the Central area in the summertime, especially the two months, probably June
and July would be the prime months, of course, for the salmon fishery. If we put
more into tourism in our area we can certainly bring people to our area from all
around. If we can't have outside-the-province visits this year, or limited, we
can certainly drag people in from outlying areas in our own province and enjoy
the beautiful scenery of the Exploits District and the Central area itself.
Once you leave Bishop's Falls and you go out through
Exploits, you can go down through Botwood. Botwood has some of the best murals
in Atlantic Canada. I'm sure a lot of people have heard about them; I don't know
how many people have seen them, but I would certainly invite you to come out and
see them this summer. The beautiful murals that they have on all of the
buildings down there, depicting the heritage of Botwood and the history of
Botwood. Seeing how I was on the hospital, I'll certainly mention the one of Dr.
Hugh Twomey, a great doctor, a great physician himself, who helped build that
community and build the hospital in Botwood, Mr. Speaker. There are beautiful
murals there.
Then you keep on going down through the rest of the
district, you have Point Leamington, Fortune Harbour, Cottrell's Cove and
Leading Tickles, all beautiful scenic area, Mr. Speaker. Rugged coasts,
beautiful beaches and beautiful people; the people themselves are wonderful to
be around. They'd help you and assist you in any way they can. Mr. Speaker,
tourism is certainly an area that we can develop and make that area a lot more
feasible for tourism.
Roads: I'll just mention a few things on the roads.
Being from that area, with regard to getting to the – if the people have to
drive to Grand Falls-Windsor and the outlying areas on the roads, that can be
treacherous at times. If we're going to develop tourism, I'm sure the roads
would need a little bit more attention. There is some roadwork that needs to be
done, Mr. Speaker.
I'm hoping to meet with the minister and hoping to
address some of the attention on the roads. I'm sure roads in every district, in
every area, everybody is looking for roads because it is good for
transportation. If we're going to increase tourism, drag people around our own
province to get them in from other areas, roads is something that has to be
addressed so people can avail of it and be comfortable with regard to driving in
the areas, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, also in the district, I know employment
becomes a big issue. I'm sure it's seen all across the province, Mr. Speaker, of
employment. In Exploits, we have an abundance of forestry, we have an abundance
of mining and I must say, yes, there is a mine started in Valentine Lake right
now. Marathon Gold is up there, they're starting to mine and that's going to
bring upwards of 400 people in capacity when that mine is up and running in
2023. It is great. That is great news to hear and to see our province taking on
mining like that. But in other fashions, we've also got lots of minerals in the
Central region, in the Exploits region. I've talked to geologists out there and
they feel that the minerals there are still untapped with regard to the
industries that could be put there with mining.
Not only mining, forestry is another industry that is
really not tapped into. It is tapped into in Central Newfoundland, of course, in
the Exploits District, the big zones 10, 11 and 12 are the big forest baskets.
There are sawmills and industry right now on the Island, of course. The West
Coast and outside Central, they do take the pulp and the timber from Central
Newfoundland and just carry it away. People in that area are just watching the
trucks full of timber and loads of timber just leaving our area when we need
something with secondary processing in the Exploits District, Mr. Speaker. It's
there, our resource is right there on our own doorstep but we're watching it
being all trucked away and all pulled away. The people feel like this could
certainly be an industry that we could tap into, Mr. Speaker, to keep
employment, to keep people in our Central area and to keep everyone employed and
create jobs.
With that, Mr. Speaker, Botwood harbour is one of the
deepest harbours on the Northeast Coast. It has potential. If shipping becomes a
problem, I'm sure the Botwood harbour, once we tapped into the mining a lot
more, use the forestry a lot more with products and the minerals we have, if we
could get all that working in the Central area, we'd have a great place to live;
economically, we would have a great place to live. Botwood harbour, if it means
shipping lanes, I mean that was a shipping lane for years with the old Abitibi
in Botwood and the papermaking. They shipped it all out of Botwood at the time
and that, like I say, again, that port is one of the deepest ones; beautiful
harbours on the Northeast Coast.
I'm sure if we needed to ship forest products, if we
can find an industry, if we need to ship our products and our mining and our
industries, if we could get something there and use Botwood as a port, we'd have
a full operation down in Exploits District in the Central region which could
avail of lot more jobs, a lot more industry in the area. We need to put more
attention on that.
Mr. Speaker, agriculture, that's another big industry
in the Central Newfoundland region. I talked to some of the farmers and the
crops that they grow are – it's wonderful to see. Food efficiency is becoming a
thing now especially with COVID. We've learned that we need to be more
self-sufficient with regard to food. I know that the government has tried to
increase the crop availability here from 10 per cent of what we have right now
to about 15 to 20. To do that, Mr. Speaker, we need to help the farmers that are
already there.
I know there was a program in place, $2.7 million for
potato farming – youth, new farmers, that kind of stuff coming in, but that
doesn't help the Central region right now. That seems to be all going to the
West Coast and other areas of the province rather than directly into Exploits
and the direct Central area.
There are experienced farmers in that area, Mr.
Speaker; they've been at it for years. They know how to grow a crop. They know
what it takes. They started off with nothing, basically. They worked themselves
up and they have experience and they have great crops in there now. Some even
have apple orchards on their farms in there. It's great to see that. I'm sure
with some help and some funding they can diversify in a lot more crops and a lot
more food, Mr. Speaker, and expand our food self-sufficiency in years to come.
To do that, Mr. Speaker, they need some assistance in
order to expand and to grow. Even irrigation in some of the areas is a problem
to them. Even if we could help with that, the water supply, especially in a dry
year and dry summers. This could be another summer that might be dry because it
seems like this year the rain, the runoff seems to be happening a lot quicker.
The brooks seem to be a lot lower so this could be a year where we're putting in
money to help – if you're putting in money to help expand the crops, well,
irrigation has to be one thing, because if we lose a crop, then our food
self-sufficiency is certainly depleted.
We need to put more emphasis on the experienced
farmers. Not only the new farmers but we need to put more money into experienced
farmers, farmers that have the ability, have the know-how to expand, Mr.
Speaker, and make this province a great place to live and be self-sufficient in
our food.
Mr. Speaker, when I go back to health, diabetic pumps
are another thing I've heard that people are needing assistance with. There are
lots of things in health care that really need attention in the Exploits
District. I know that all across this province it's probably the same. People
are looking for the same things, no doubt. Whatever district we're in, wherever
we go, people are looking for it. We need to put more attention on the people
that we have here. We need to put more emphasis on health care, growing our own
province and making our communities a lot stronger.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I'll end off by saying, again,
that anybody wanting to reach out and explore the Exploits District this year,
I'm sure that you would love to come there and, especially, take up some of the
area in just, like I said, the salmon rivers. It's great to sit down on the
salmon river in Bishop's Falls there. They have new lookouts and you can watch
the salmon. I can't get off the salmon because it's on my mind. I see the Member
for Baie Verte - Green Bay; I guess he likes doing a bit of fishing himself.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it's always great to get up in
this House of Assembly and talk about the district because I believe in the
Exploits District; I believe in the people of the Exploits District. I believe
that we can make it work in the Central area; we can make it work in the
Exploits District alone for people. We have lots of development that can happen
there. We have people who want to make it work there, with some help from
government in those areas, to help the people along.
We have some great entrepreneurs in there that are
looking to expand and looking for businesses out there. They have some ideas. If
we keep tapping into our resources, tapping into our people, Mr. Speaker, we
will make Exploits District a great place to live and this province a great
place to be.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to
speak to the budget this morning. Unfortunately – well, it depends on how you
look at it, I suppose, whose point of view. From my point of view,
unfortunately, 20 minutes is not a lot of time, considering there are so many
things in the budget and so many things we could speak to. I'm sure there will
be lots of opportunities throughout this process. I know there are some money
bills coming as well, so there will be lots of opportunity to speak about
specific aspects of the budget.
This morning I just want to sort of hit the top of the
trees on my view of the budget at first blush. I have reached out to my
constituents seeking feedback. I haven't received a lot of feedback yet, but
it's like anything else, I'm sure we've all been inundated with emails from –
NAPE employees are obviously saying reject the Greene report in totality,
basically, don't lay anybody off and so on. We've all received numerous emails,
I'm assuming, from the NLTA and concerns that teachers have. We've all received
them from the Employers' Council telling us to get on with it and start making
the cuts and adjustments that they feel need to be made to get us on a better
track financially.
Those are opposing views. Obviously, they all have
their own interests and so on. I'm not saying that they don't have the interest
of the province at heart as well, but they all come from their own perspectives
based on – I guess where you sit is kind of where you stand so they say. That's
the expression. We get that. But some of the feedback I've received from – and,
again, not a lot thus far – some constituents of mine is they felt that the
budget has not gone far enough in addressing our fiscal circumstance.
Now, I realize again that depends on the individual and
perhaps it depends on the region of the province that you represent. But looking
at the demographic that I represent, from a general point of view, I think
citizens are very concerned about the year-over-year deficits, the huge
provincial debt and the solvency of the province. I think it's fair to say many
of them I have spoken to don't believe the answer is simply to take the easy way
out, just tax people to death and try to solve our fiscal situation that way.
They believe that we need to look at the expense side–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The level of talking is a little too loud.
P.
LANE:
–
of the financials and look at ways that we can be more efficient, more nimble
and save money.
That seems to be the general theme I've received thus
far. I realize not everybody shares that view. No matter what government does,
it doesn't matter; you're going to have people that are going to be for and
against every measure taken in a budget, generally speaking.
Let's face it, in an ideal world people want to see
better services and less taxes. That's not always possible. There's only a
finite amount of money to spend. As much as we'd like to see more money for this
and more money for that, particularly in our districts, the reality of it is
that we have a provincial debt that is crippling us. I'm not sure what the net
debt is now but it's over $15 billion for sure, maybe more than that: $16
million.
S.
COADY:
Seventeen.
P.
LANE:
Seventeen, there you go. Thank you, Finance Minister.
Seventeen billion dollars, with a B, just think about
that, for a population of 500,000 people and, of course, we're going to borrow
probably another billion again this year or more. That's going to bring us up to
$18 billion. That's just with the net debt. That's not with all the other
unfunded liabilities and everything else thrown in there.
It is a huge problem. It's a huge problem. The Auditor
General has pointed it out on numerous occasions. Our lenders have obviously
pointed it out. I think we all know deep inside, whether we want to admit it or
not, that action has to be taken. I think we've known it for a long time but the
will just has not been there. I understand the political pressure, I get it.
I'm sure that there are going to be some tough measures
that are being proposed that I'm going to support, depending on how they're
done, of course, and if they're done right. I'm sure I'm going to take some
backlash for supporting some of these things, but, at some point in time, we
have to realize the situation we're in financially and be willing to say that
some action has to be taken.
There were some positives that I saw in the Budget
Speech, some things that I was kind of happy to see. I was happy to see that
there's going to be a continuation and perhaps an enhancement of the specialty
courts, whether that be family violence intervention court and Drug Treatment
Court and so on. I'm certainly not a lawyer or nothing like that, but I have
sort of read up on, to some degree, the benefit of having these speciality
courts and trying to deal with people's issues as opposed to just strictly
taking punitive measures and incarceration, trying to actually deal with the
root of the problem and so on. Having specialty courts that are going to deal
with some of these social issues and addictions and everything else, I think
that's a positive move and I would certainly support it. I was glad to see that,
actually.
I was also glad to see that there continues to be a
commitment to our oil and gas industry in terms of there is some investment
there. I wish our federal government was as committed to our oil and gas
industry as we are in this House of Assembly. I am really concerned about that,
I really think that there is this sort of ideology in Ottawa that is not on our
side when it comes to our offshore oil and gas, and I think it is hurting us and
it could hurt us even more.
I think we all understand in this House the value of
our oil and gas industry and the tremendous benefits that it has brought to our
province, both from the perspective of royalties, but also employment and the
building of expertise and so on in our province. It has been tremendous for us.
Let's face it, it really has been a godsend for our province.
Unfortunately, we have been experiencing issues which
are – global issues, let's face it, it is not Newfoundland and Labrador issues
per se; these are global issues. I certainly hope we can get things on track,
but I was glad to see signs and signals in the budget that the government is
committed to our oil and gas. As others have said, and I would certainly agree
with the fact, the world is not going to be coming off fossil fuels tomorrow:
that's not reality.
I have had some people reach out to me, I'm sure others
have as well, who've said shut her all down, everything is going green, it is a
dying industry and so on. I understand the world is slowly moving towards a
green economy and many would argue that the faster the better, and I agree in
terms of global warming and so on, that needs to happen, but there is what we
would like to see and then there is the reality. I try as best as I can to deal
with reality, not wishful thinking. I think the reality of it is that it will be
around, oil and gas will be around and petroleum products will be around for
many years to come.
If it is going to be developed and it is going to be
needed throughout the world, somebody has got to benefit from it so why not
Newfoundland and Labrador. Especially given the fact that we have some of the
cleanest oil, so to speak, on the planet, so I understand, from a processing
perspective and so on. It makes sense to me that as we transition, that we
exploit as much of our product as we can to benefit our province so that we can
use those revenues to help get us out of debt and help us transition to the new
green economy.
That just seems to make good sense to me. Again, I'm no
expert in that either but it makes good sense and I was glad to see a commitment
from our government that we're not giving up on our oil and gas industry. I
would be very, very – disappointed would be an understatement if we were.
I was also pleased to see that government has committed
that they're going to be developing, I guess, a new renewed Poverty Reduction
Strategy or plan or whatever you want to call it. That's good news because there
was great progress made by the former administration. I think it was started
under Premier Williams, if I'm not mistaken, the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
They made good progress over the years, but it seems to me that it kind of
stalled. At some point in time, it kind of stalled and we haven't seen that type
of commitment for a few years. We've maintained what we've had but I don't think
we made a lot of strides beyond where we've been, certainly not enough.
I'm glad to see that government is saying they're going
to sort of renew and kick-start that process and, hopefully, in doing so we can
find ways to help lift people out of poverty and make them healthier and
contributors to our province.
The fitness tax credit: Obviously, that's a positive in
terms of trying to move from – in our health care system prevention, I guess. I
guess the only criticism of the fitness tax credit – obviously, a lot of people
in my district think that's a wonderful thing because a lot of those people are
of the income base and so on that they have the money, not all, but I'd say most
people have the money to be able to go to a gym and whatever. They're doing it
now anyway, so if they can get a tax rebate for going to the gym or for having
their kids in sports, well, then, obviously, they're going to say that's a good
thing so I'm not going to be against that.
But I would point out, I think as others have pointed
out in reaction to the budget, I'm not sure that does a lot for low-income
families and people who can't afford to – they can't afford the gym membership
and then wait for a tax credit at the end of the year. They don't have the money
upfront to even afford to go to a gym or some of them can't afford to put their
kids in sports. I know there are programs like Jumpstart and so on, which are
great programs. I know certainly in Mount Pearl all of the sporting groups, they
will never let a child who wants to participate not participate because of
money. Whether Jumpstart is available or not, they always find other ways
internally to make sure every child who wants to play can play. I certainly
commend them for that.
Again, if we want to be committed to this and going
down this road, this is a positive, but we need to find ways to make sure that
people of low income can participate in this as well, and that they have ways
for their children to avail of sports and fitness. By the way, the same thing
goes on the sugar tax issue. That's received somewhat of a mixed review in the
public. Some people are applauding it and other people are saying that you're
attacking the most vulnerable who can't afford healthy food.
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea in concept,
but I would like to see – and I don't know how we do this by the way, so I'm
just throwing it out there as a thought more than a plan, because I don't have
one, I'll admit that. It would seem to me that if we're going to be collecting
extra money from a sugar tax, somehow that money should be diverted into some
kind of a program to help low-income families to be able to afford milk to
replace pop, healthy foods and healthy drinks. You're not really solving the
problem unless people can afford the healthy stuff. We need to be doing more to
get healthy food for people who can't afford healthy food.
It's fine for all of us here and many people who can go
up to the grocery store. We might complain. I know I go up to the grocery store
lots of times and say: Oh my God, look at the price for a few grapes or
whatever, it's ridiculous, but at the end of the day, I still buy them. I might
complain about it but I still buy them, I can afford to buy them. What about the
people who can't? Somehow, we have to do something for those people.
I was very pleased that government had announced that
they're going to be adding oversight here in this House of Assembly to agencies,
boards and commissions. That was probably my favourite highlight of the budget,
to be honest with you, on a personal level, because it's something that
certainly I've been advocating for in the last number of years and I really
believe it's the right thing to do.
As I've said in this House of Assembly in other Budget
Speeches and other times, here we are counting pencils in the minister's office
and then just approving one line on the budget that transfers millions or
billions of dollars to a particular entity. I think with the Minister of Health,
as an example, it is $3 billion – one line, a $3-billion grant to the health
care authorities. We're not even talking about $3 billion but we're asking the
minister how much he spent on photocopying in his office, which is kind of
ridiculous when you think about it. I definitely applaud that move. I'm glad you
did it. I'm glad you listened.
The electric vehicle grant, I think that's a good idea.
The feds are doing it and other provinces are supplementing the federal grant
with a provincial grant. I'm not sure if our grant is as high as some of the
other provinces, but it's a start. It helps move us down that road of a green
economy. I thought that was a positive, as well as having the infrastructure in
place across the province for you to be able to charge your vehicles. I think
these are moves in the right direction. Also, the grant to convert oil to
electric heat – that was another one.
We've maintained, of course, the $25-a-day child care.
The $25-a-day child care – and I know the feds are saying they want to get it
down to $10 and a lot of people will applaud that. There's no doubt that child
care is a barrier to getting people in the workforce. No doubt about it. I think
these things will pay for itself over time, I really do.
On the $25-a-day child care – and I don't know if other
Members have gotten calls from daycare operators or whatever in their district,
child care operators, but one of the issues that I'm hearing is that there are a
number of child care operators that are not offering $25-a-day child care;
they're not doing it. They can't do it because they were charging $45 a day.
That was their business model that they were utilizing.
The government is saying we want to reduce to $25 a
day, but we're only going to give you a subsidy of, I think it is, $13. If you
do the math, if they charge $25 and the government gives them $13 – $25 and $13
is $38, not $45. They have to take a $7 cut in their revenue per child, a $7 cut
in order to offer this program.
Many of them are saying I can't afford it. Maybe if
you're a large operator and you're doing it on volume you can suck it up somehow
and make it happen, but a lot of the operators can't. They've had to say: No,
b'y, I'm sorry. There are a lot of people that are not getting the advantage of
the $25-a-day child care because their child care operator is saying: I'm sorry;
I'm not enrolling in this. I can't. If you want to try to find somewhere at $25
a day, be my guest. Of course, they can't, because there's nowhere else to go
because they're full. So people are still having to pay the $45. That is a
problem that needs to be addressed.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, when I started, all I've done
is I've sort of ticked off a few positives. I haven't even started on any of the
cuts or proposed cuts and I'm out of time already. I'm glad I'm going to have
lots of opportunities to get on that track as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, it's a privilege to speak in this House on
behalf of the wonderful people of Labrador West. Maybe I'll take a page from the
book of my colleague there – from his response to the budget – from Stephenville
- Port au Port; I'll name all the communities in my district: Labrador City,
Wabush. There we go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
BROWN:
I
know. I only have two communities, but I have more iron mines than I do have
communities, so that's a bonus there. There are four operating iron mines in my
district alone, maybe soon to be five, maybe soon to be six.
We are blessed that we have such abundant resources. I
think one geologist told me: Don't worry about buying anything or building a
home or a cabin in Lab West; you'll be good for 200 years. I'm glad to hear that
there's at least 200 years of iron in the ground around my community alone.
That brings with it a lot of opportunity. If we look at
the budget lines and stuff like that, it referenced iron ore a lot in the
budget, which I'm really pleased to hear. In it, it referenced man-years or
people-years of work, and it's in the thousands. So thousands of person-years of
work, that's a good shining light. It's a strong, steady industry that's been
around forever and a day. The first prospectors to go into the area were in the
1900s, so we always knew it was there. We always knew we had this asset in the
ground. The question always was how do we get it out in an economical way?
Thanks to the post-war boom of World War II, they found
a way to get it out. Building the railway alone was considered the greatest
railway-engineering project in the modern world, just to build a railway into
Labrador to get up onto the height of land. Ingenuity – if it's there, it's
there, and if they want it they'll come and get it. We have an abundant
resource, we have a great opportunity there and let's continue to grow that
opportunity in a reasonable manner.
We're now entering the world of the green, low-carbon
economy and even the mining companies are looking at themselves internally and
saying: How do we continue to do business and how do we do it in a green,
economical way?
Here's the great thing that I've noticed after speaking
to some people in industry, is that it's actually creating more jobs in the
mining industry by switching to low-carbon initiatives and stuff like that.
They're actually creating more jobs within their own organizations, which has
been a fascinating thing in a sense that the investment into green mining that
we all know no matter what we build or what we need, we're always going to need
iron; we're always going to need nickel, copper and the list goes on.
But how do we get it out of the ground and do it in a
way that we're not hurting the environment beyond what we've already hurt it?
This is where we need to take a strong initiative and investment to look at the
technology, the research and development.
I know last evening we were here for Estimates with the
Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology and we had a great conversation
about all of those kind of things with the staff of the department. We have to
work towards this, we have to invest in research and development, and we have to
get Memorial University on board to do that in their facility because there are
opportunities there. We have to get to them before somebody else gets to them,
because if we lose our foothold in that market, if we lose our foothold in the
change into the green economy, then we're behind the eight ball and then it's
just no good.
We have to take our time – well, not even actually take
our time, we don't have time. We need to take an initiative into investing in
these opportunities while we have the chance, while we're ahead of the game. We
have some of the biggest players in the mining industry in our province already
that are looking at these things.
I know in Labrador West, one of the mines there is
looking at the idea that: I'm burning too much bunker C, I need to stop burning
bunker C, because if I keep burning bunker C I can't trade with the European
Union because they're putting in such strict rules about even what goods they
import. They already have it on gold and silver and all of that stuff in the EU
that if these minerals are coming from an area that's not environmentally
friendly, trade friendly, treat their employees well, they won't import it into
the European Union.
Now, this is coming down onto base metals like iron,
copper, nickel and all this stuff. They're saying that they don't want to lose
their foothold in the European market, so, obviously, they have to take a shift.
These new regulations, these things are putting pressure on these companies to
actually change, and some of them are taking the initiative to do it just before
the rules come into place.
We have mining opportunities there that are saying, do
you know what? I have to stop burning bunker C. I have to convert from using
that. Well lucky for us in this province, we have hydroelectricity, which the
European Union sees as an opportunity, they say it's okay if you're using
hydroelectricity, you tick the box for environmental in the sense that you're
not burning fossil fuels and you're not releasing carbon.
Now, they're looking at technology of how can they
convert certain mechanics of their operation into green technology. This is
where we have the opportunity to invest in the mining industry and changing the
mining industry in a way that we can be the leader in the world for green
mining.
I know if you look at the term green mining, well,
you're still digging a hole in the ground, you're still doing that, but you at
least have to start with your carbon emissions and then work back on other
opportunities you can to make sure that we leave as little destruction and
little footprint in the environment we have, especially in Labrador. Labrador
has always been deemed the last natural frontier in this country. It's the last
place that you can go and still see things as they were thousands of years ago.
This is another thing, too, we have these
opportunities, we have these active operations, do it with the least amount of
impact to the environment, but, at the same time, do it in a way that when we
clean up the site and everything like that it's like it was never ever there.
That's where we have to take these things. We also look
at orphaned mines and orphaned sites and other industrial sites throughout our
province, too. We have to take the opportunity to clean it up, put it back to
the way it was so that we can also remember that, yeah, we did that, but, at the
same time, we put it back when we were done because we don't want to leave it
for another generation. I'm sure the generation behind us is already a little
pissed off with us as it is, what we've leaving them with.
We have to keep that in mind that we have a
responsibility to the environment, we have a responsibility to the economy and
we have a responsibility to the people of this province. We have to weigh those
three things very heavily on the sense that what we do over here will have an
effect with the other two and vice versa.
I always have the interesting thing that in my
community we have a cyclical market that is the iron ore market. Today is a
great day, ore is trading at – I think this morning it was 190-something tons on
the 62 per cent market, which you add premiums in, that's over
$200-and-something dollars a ton for ore that comes out of Labrador because it's
a better quality ore.
That's great, that's record highs, but, at the same
time, it creates problems; low-income people in my district usually get bumped
out of housing, contract companies and stuff coming in to do work for the mine
bumps things around. We always have people who don't work in the mining
industry, who work in the service industry, who don't make quite enough to pay
for the $2,000 to $3,000 a month apartment. We always say it's great, the mine
is doing great, but the balance is thrown off.
We always have to take that into consideration, what
you do over here is going to affect over here. So we always have to take the
effect that homelessness and stuff in my district is a little different than it
would be here, probably in the metro area. It does get to 40 below in Lab West
and it does have its challenges. Then once the mining market goes the other way
around, you'll see that homelessness and stuff kind of disappears for a little
while because those people who are charging $2,000 or $3,000 a month for an
apartment needs to get people back in their building so they drop it down to a
reasonable rate, the people move back into these apartments again and then the
cycle starts all over again.
When we do get these markets and we look at development
and all these things and all the opportunities that we do create, we also have
to put in safety nets or measures in place that keep protecting the people on
the other end of the spectrum. We need to make sure that when we're doing great,
that the negatives that come with doing great don't outweigh or affect the
people that are on the other side. We have to find that perfect – well, not
perfect balance, but we need to find a balance that everyone in our society is
protected from certain elements of other things.
We look at the housing, we look at that, we make extra
sure we have enough housing in place for when it happens, but we also have to
look at the ideas that when we are in a downturn, it is a great opportunity for
maintenance review and look at what you have to make sure that it's ready just
in case it happens again.
I always find it interesting in my district, we have a
very large population – we are one of the largest regions, communities that
don't have an emergency shelter – no barrier shelter. We don't need it all the
time but in times like this is when we need it. We find ourselves sometimes, a
single individual venturing up to Lab West to, hopefully, find that job and hit
it big, but sometimes they fall on hard times or there are other issues in the
way and they find themselves homeless, no job, trapped in a community that is
not familiar to them. It happens pretty frequently. Or they haven't hit it big
with that job yet and they get kicked out of an apartment and end up having to
leave the job because they don't have a place or don't have a vehicle.
We get these situations that we are not prepared for.
We don't have the mechanisms in place to deal with these situations like other
communities in this province that do have it. We find ourselves in these
situations that we need that little investment, we need that safety net built in
place to protect these individuals.
There are situations – sometimes it's not even a fault
of their own; it's a fault of the situation of how the markets and that work in
Labrador West. Some people are just not prepared for that. Everyone always jokes
and calls us sometimes little Fort McMurray, because we have similar social
situations that they have, but on a really scaled-down version.
We have the opportunities and stuff there. Like I said,
another big one that comes up when we're in a good high market is addictions and
mental health issues. I always tell people big money comes with big problems. In
some cases it's addictions. We've always struggled in Labrador West with
addictions.
One shocking revelation came to me one day that some of
the people in the community were finding needles and stuff around the community.
I was informed that, yeah, injected narcotics have made its way to Labrador
West. That's a scary, scary thought to think that we're going down that road. We
need to make sure that we have the net for proper drug and alcohol addiction
treatment in our region.
Gambling addiction is another huge issue that we battle
with. Like I said, big money becomes big problems. It's not unheard of,
unfortunately, to hear stories of complete paycheques put in one of those
machines. We're blessed with one thing, but it comes with its own challenges, it
comes with its own demons, per se.
It's very hard to think that we're doing so well, but
at the same time, there's a group of people that's not doing so well. We need to
make sure that we have as much social safety nets in place that we can to make
sure to minimize the impact of these things. Then, when the market does – and it
will – come down, we go into another thing where a lot more people will be
negatively impacted and we'll stretch the services and stuff very thin.
I'll take a moment, too, to talk about the seniors in
my district. We've never been a community known to have a large seniors
population, but now we do. Like I said previously to that, we're a newly aging
town. We've only been there since 1959, but now we're going on third- and
fourth-generation Labrador West residents. The second and third generations are
sticking around to watch their grandkids grow up in the community that they
helped build, but the thing is the services and the care for these seniors is
just not there. A lot of them are stuck in very large houses with large
maintenance bills. Trying to downsize into something reasonable is not there.
Some people, they're widows with a bit of advanced care. There's no seniors'
home or anything that could take care of them, there's only Level 4 long-term
care.
I take the example of my Aunt Blanche. She's 94 years
old. She's currently the oldest living resident in Labrador West; first to get
her vaccine in Lab West, too. She only just recently had to go into long-term
care. She spent many years alone in a large house that was very hard for her to
maintain, until she got to the point where she had to go into Level 4 at the
long-term care facility because she had a loss of mobility. She came to the
community when she was young and she was one of the many people who helped build
it to what we have today. She stuck around because she wanted to watch all her
grandchildren, and nieces and nephews and everything, grow up in the community
that she helped build.
We have many residents with similar stories. They don't
want to leave because they helped build it. Why would they want to go somewhere
else? They want to see the fruits of their labour and watch their grandkids and
great-grandkids grow up in the community that they helped build. We're really
struggling with that. We really have a need to look after our seniors, but it's
just not there. An investment in seniors is a good investment, because they
helped build this whole province to the beautiful province we have. We need to
make sure that we look after them and put them in a place that they are
comfortable and treated with respect and dignity.
Right now, my residents, unfortunately, don't have that
opportunity to stick around. They're being told they have to go to communities
that they don't even know. They may have passed through on the TCH, but they've
never been there; they don't know anybody there and now they're asked to live
there. It is pretty heartbreaking to have to tell residents that if they want
that kind of care, they have to leave Labrador West. Like I said, we are the
most western point in this province. We are the most far-flung and now you're
telling people to leave to go 2,000 kilometres away just to have the care they
need. It's pretty hard to tell them that. We have the opportunities and we
should put the investment into looking after these people who helped build our
community.
Another great opportunity in Labrador now is tourism. I
spent a bit of time on the Gateway Labrador board. We talked about tourism and
how we can turn Labrador West into a little bit of a tourism hub. It's not our
main industry. A lot of the oxygen in the room gets sucked up by the mining
industries, but there's a great opportunity there. A lot of people want to come
and see. They want to see a haul truck or a giant mining shovel. Actually, in
this province the rarity of seeing a train does draw people to Labrador West. So
we do have some of that opportunity, but we also have natural beauty, which is
another thing.
When I was with Gateway Labrador, we talked about all
the different aspects of how to bring tourism and stuff like that. One season,
we decided to do a survey on what kind of people were actually coming to
Labrador West. We had a volunteer survey and the first category was Québécois.
One of the larger groups that did come through was people from Quebec. The
second was German or German speakers, so people from Germany, Austria and
Switzerland. They were our second-largest group of tourists to pass through
Labrador West.
It was pretty interesting to see this German group come
through. They were coming through as adventure tourists. Most of them had
specially designed retired military vehicles, modified to take them on these
very long journeys. Some of them were coming right on up from South America,
right on through and that, but they heard about Labrador, they heard about its
thing.
A lot of them were disappointed to find the road was
paved. They were always told about this great big, long gravel highway. I told
them we're grateful that it's paved, but to them, they wanted the adventure of a
gravel road, but so be it. They were always told about Labrador. I'm guessing
some of them must have been reading The
Lure Of The Labrador Wild or heard
about Leo Hubbard or the great adventurers that passed through Labrador. That's
what they wanted; they wanted that adventure of travelling into this great,
unknown territory.
It was very interesting to see that we have this market
for tourism over in Europe like we do, but it was all word of mouth. They were
all finding out about this through these stories and these things: this was just
word of mouth and it was a significant group of them. So capturing the idea of
Labrador's raw beauty as a tourism thing is possible. We should take some strong
investment into just enticing people to take in Labrador as it is and as it
currently stands as this last bastion of natural beauty and opportunity for
people in this province. It is great to see that we have that and we need to
capitalize it, not create tourism, but just use what we already have to our
advantage.
Another thing I do want to say is – and my colleague
from Mount Pearl - Southlands touched on it too – is the thing about sports and
encouraging healthy activity. I always say it starts at school. Healthy eating
habits and physical activity starts in school, because that's where people pick
up on their habits and people pick up on the different things that they do in
their adult life. Investment in school sports and the ability to have –
post-COVID – school sports and stuff, to compete with each other and to create
that camaraderie is really important.
The hardest thing for Labrador residents is to leave
Labrador to compete on the Island for sports and in the arts. There used to be
programs at one time that did help with this. I really think we need to go back
and look at that again, to give the opportunity for school sport and for school
art, to be able to travel to the Island portion of the province and compete or
show off their works as one province. Right now, the majority of it is
Labradorians are trapped in Labrador and people on the Island are trapped on the
Island.
We should have the ability to enable school sport and
art communities to travel interprovincially and meet each other and compete or
perform, because I think that comradery was a very key thing in this province,
and the idea of team sport and stuff like that, or even individual sport, but
competing –
SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time is
expired.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'll concur with my colleague from Labrador West, it is
an absolutely beautiful area. I worked as a paramedic there at the Captain
William Jackman Memorial Hospital and it was fantastic. People that are great,
and there are lots there, so.
First of all, I want to thank the people of Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans for re-electing me again. In 2019, they saw an
oil-covered driller from out west that came home and wanted to do the best for
his province, and they gave me that opportunity. I wanted to work hard and make
them proud and give me the second opportunity; that's what they did. I thank
them for that.
I also want to recognize everybody else here that were
successful. I want to acknowledge everybody's families – wives, husbands and
children. It's not easy to go through an election and it's much harder on them,
I find sometimes, than ourselves. So kudos to all them as well.
Why are we elected? I'm elected for Grand Falls-Windsor
- Buchans because we can't fit 18,000 people in this House of Assembly from that
area. I am here to speak for them, and that's exactly what I intend to do. When
I speak for them, I do the best I can for their interests. That's what we're all
here for. The government listens, we bring their voices forward, their concerns,
their issues, and we expect action or we expect at least an acknowledgement.
I know some time ago I presented a petition here in the
House of Assembly about bullying in schools. That can touch on mental health, it
can touch on education and whatnot. I also know that ministers are busy. This is
not to call anybody out or embarrass anybody. But when I presented that petition
a lot of parents, a lot of students, a lot of people put a lot of work into that
for me to present into this House of Assembly, to get a reaction, to get some
sort of answer. Again, it's not to embarrass anybody or call anybody out, but I
was hoping to get an answer or at least a response, at the time, from the
minister.
Now, I know the minister's very, very busy. I know he
works very, very hard. I know he's put pretty much a lifetime into our province.
I can't thank him enough for that. But it's very disappointing when we bring the
voices forward, the people we represent, to the ministers, to the government,
and we don't get a response. If there's a phone call made, there's no phone call
back. That's very deliberate sometimes to ourselves. We don't like it, our
constituents don't like it. It's not the way it should be.
I'll just remind everybody in this House of Assembly,
the ministers included, you're the minister for your department for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador and I just want to get that straight. I might be
sitting as a minister one day and I hope somebody reminds me of that as well
because sometimes it may be needed to remind somebody of that. I appreciate the
work you do, but remember what your role is. It's a separate role from your
constituency, in my opinion. I just wanted to get that straight.
You know I don't care if you're a doctor, a lawyer, an
oil rig worker, teacher or hockey player from Bell Island, it doesn't mater,
check the ego at the door. When you come in here everybody is the same;
everybody should remain the same. Everybody should have the same goals in mind.
I'm learning as I go here, it's been two years, I
learned a lot in the past two years and I have so much more to learn, I look
forward to it. That's that, I look forward to working with the government as we
move forward for the best interests of the people from Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans, and all throughout the province.
The next thing I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is
acknowledge something very important throughout the world and especially here in
Newfoundland and Labrador and that's Pride Month. We just entered Pride Month
here on June 1. I want to recognize all those men and women, children, boys and
girls who find the courage to just be themselves. It's very difficult sometimes,
especially in this day and age. I want to recognize everybody who does that.
I'll give you a case in point and how hard it can be
sometimes. In 2014, I picked up my youngest son Declan, he was about nine years
old at the time, I picked him up from sliding, and we were driving home. He
looked at me and he said: Dad, I think I want to paint my room – true story. I
said: That's great son. What colour would you like to paint it? He said: Purple.
I said: Absolutely. Let's get on it when we get home and get some purple paint
and paint your room. With that he sort of looked down and he looked up at me
again and he said: Well, Dad, you probably don't want a son with a purple room,
do you? It absolutely broke my heart. We sort of knew back then which direction
he was headed.
Fast forward to the summer of 2020, this past summer
and when he came out to myself and his mom. That kid is my hero because he was
always himself. He grew up – and I tell you what, he had some tough days growing
up, like so many other people here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That kid
remained himself and stayed true to himself, when so many people are fake in
this world. Boy, he was my hero growing up. I love him to death.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C.
TIBBS:
There are so many like him and what they suffer through their whole lives, not
just until they get to adulthood but their whole lives, what they suffer
through, holding in what they would think to be an embarrassment or what they
would be outcast for. Boys and girls, it's a different age and time, and thank
God it is.
For any young men and women throughout my district,
Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, there's a very modest bungalow at the corner of
Knight Street and Newhook Street. If you ever need to get away or if you ever
need to seek a place of acceptance, understanding or safety, you go to that
house. I guarantee you, I'll be there waiting for you and we'll take care of it
from there. I promise you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C.
TIBBS:
I'll just spend another moment on this and then we will get into some more
details.
I would be remiss if I didn't recognize our men and
women throughout the military who gave these people the right to be who they
are, past and present. Thank you so very much to all soldiers past, all the
soldiers present for working so hard, fighting, giving up your lives so my son
can be the man that he is today.
Many districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador
face different challenges, but many districts also face the same challenges: the
pandemic. I'm not talking about COVID-19 pandemic; I'm talking about the mental
health pandemic that we face every single day. Some people face it more than
others.
The societal pressures that are put on parents today
are absolutely overwhelming. It's absolutely crazy to think about it. Most of us
in here are parents, and there are so many parents out there, but the pressures
that are on parents today can break a man or a women, absolutely.
I look back 40 years ago or 20 years ago, 30 years ago,
when I growing up, for instance, when I was 12 or 13, a $2 plastic hockey blade
at the bottom of the stick, b'y, that's all I needed at the end of the day. Now,
a parent is pressured to buy a $1,600 iPhone for their kid, because they need
it. To face those pressure and challenges, oh boy, it's tough sometimes. It's
tough on everybody, I can guarantee you. It doesn't matter which part of society
you're in; it's a very, very tough thing to deal with.
The price of goods, services, food – my colleague from
Mount Pearl - Southlands alluded to it earlier – they're not in line with the
money we're making now. Not us, but people in general out in the province. It's
a struggle for a lot of people. If you want to see something absolutely
heartbreaking, when you go to Dominion and Sobeys – I'm a bit weird, yes; I am.
I'll go to Sobeys and Dominion intentionally. I'll spend hours there. I will.
Just talking to people, of course, and observing people. There's nothing more
heartbreaking than watching a senior citizen pick up something, put it in their
cart, think about it, look at it and put it back on the shelf; a senior, a
person on low income.
When you're standing in an aisle and you're trying to
decide whether you can buy something or not – food, not just buy something or
not, but buy food – that's absolutely heartbreaking when we've hit that point.
There are so many contributing factors that go into it. The people of this
province and the people of the country – and, again, I'm not putting blame on
anybody, because this has been going on for eons, way before anybody that is sat
in this House of Assembly.
The people of this province right now are surviving;
many are not living. That's not the way we should be living. It's just a
survival game right now and it's very, very sad to watch. It is so sad to watch.
Forty years ago, many families lived comfortably with one person, whether it be
a mom or a dad working, and then the other person staying home. It created that
family dynamic which seems to be missing the past few years. I think that's
something we have to get back to because it's much different today than it was
back then. I would love to see it now again.
In this year's budget, I'm very happy to see the $2,000
family Physical Activity Tax Credit. It's going to get people moving, hopefully.
It's going to get those kids out. I think it benefits about 3,500 families. It's
fantastic to see. It's something we need because, again, it's heartbreaking to
see a child who cannot participate with his or her friends because of a money
situation. It's heartbreaking and you know what? These are the things that I
talk about. I'll never be the smartest person in the room, and I can live with
that, but my heart absolutely breaks sometimes, and that's exactly why I'm here.
I've lived some of it, so these are the things I enjoy talking about.
It's what we see on the faces each and every day.
Again, this is going to sound a little bit different, but you drive through the
city, stop at a traffic light and just look at the car next to you. Just look at
the worry and anxiety on people's faces as they try to think about how they're
going to get through the next day. It's hard to think about. It's hard to do.
We're with the people of the province and we have to work better here together
to make sure that they're taken care of as well.
The sugar tax: I'd like to touch on that for a second.
It may sound great on the surface, but I'm just wondering how this would make a
difference for healthy, affordable food when it comes to the people that we're
trying to put it in effect for. Right now, I don't know if it gives them more
accessibility to affordable, better nutrition, as opposed to just putting up a
price on something that's terrible, instead of bringing down the price of
something that can be very good for you.
The tobacco and alcohol tax is another thing. You know
what? It's not that I disagree with it, it sounds great in theory, but we have
to keep in mind, too, the implications. There are families out there, and men
and women, who are going to have these substances no matter what. If they have
to take from another portion of their family's income, that's exactly what
they're going to do. We need to keep these families in mind as well. It sounds
great on the surface, but if it's going to start taking away from a kid's hockey
registration or whatnot, that's something we should consider moving forward when
it comes to these taxes, and have certain things in place to help these people
out as well.
The tax increase to people making over $135,000: people
need to pay their fair share of taxes, absolutely. In doing so, I just want to
recognize those hard-working men and women throughout Newfoundland and Labrador
who work hard every single day and pay their taxes. I want to thank them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C.
TIBBS:
Absolutely, it's great. I take my fair share, absolutely. The rotational workers
that put it on the line every single day. Whether they're in Uganda, whether
they're in Scotland, whether they're in Alberta or anywhere else, these people
go away and every tax dollar pretty much comes home right here. It's fantastic.
I did it for 17 years as well. I didn't mind doing it. I was happy to bring all
that money back to my province.
These people, rotational workers, we need to make sure
that we keep them as happy and engaged as we possibly can. They just had a very
rough year, as everybody has, but I know rotational workers who, cumulative,
haven't seen their families in three months over the past year. They sacrificed,
they did what they had to do, but I want to recognize those rotational workers
and let you know that our hearts are with you as well.
My portfolio is Immigration, skills, labour and
population growth, some very important line items when it comes to moving
forward in this province. Immigration: I want to thank anybody who comes from a
different country to come to our beautiful province to work, work hard and
contribute and to see the benefits of living here. It's absolutely fantastic.
We have some great people out my way. Some very close
friends of mine, Rahul and Jibin – these gentlemen come over and, boy, they work
very, very hard. They hunt and they fish. They love it here. It's exactly what
we want because we have to stop this revolving door of bringing in the
immigration and sending them out the other way. We need to try to keep them
right here, in my opinion the most beautiful province in all of Canada.
Skills and labour: We have a huge skill set right here
in Newfoundland and Labrador and we need to make sure that we let everybody know
that. The men and women of Newfoundland and Labrador – when I worked out West,
there were two requirements when I applied for just about any job. The first
requirement was, of course, where are you from? Newfoundland and Labrador?
Great, you just ticked off one box because we know how hard working you're going
to be. The second requirement was do you have a family? Absolutely, because they
knew that you would have to stick around and work for a paycheque. I just want
to recognize the skilled labour unions, the skilled labour people we have in
Newfoundland and Labrador and thank you for everything you put in.
The community benefits agreement: We've been talking
about it and kicking it around since I've been here since 2019, and I'm sure
well before me throughout different administrations. I keep hearing that, yes,
it's something we're working on, something we're working on. Are we working on
it? Let's see the progression on this. Let's see the progression to the point
where we can start putting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first, the people
that actually work here.
I am still dumbfounded by the people putting up drywall
in the Corner Brook hospital brought in from out of province. It's still mind
boggling to me. I don't read it in a report, I talk to the people over there,
that work there and they're telling me the exact same thing. I'm just wondering
how we got there. I know it's not an overnight fix, but it's something – I keep
hearing: We're working on it; we're working on it, working on it. Where is the
progression? Please show me the progression so I can at least add something and
we can start putting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first.
Population growth, two questions: How do we keep people
in this province? I constantly hear young people nowadays, I can't wait to get
out of this hole – can't wait, can't wait, can't wait. We need to keep these
people here. If we don't keep our young people here, the province is done. It
truly is. The second, of course: how to get new people to come to our province.
How do we attract them? How do we let them know that Newfoundland and Labrador
is well open for business and this is the place where you want to be?
Those are some questions I put forward when it comes to
population growth, because that is the sustainability of our province moving
forward. There are a lot of contributing factors around it, but for the most
part, population growth, more revenue, if we can get some good people here
working, back to work, I think that we're going to be just fine.
Putting people first and employment in Newfoundland and
Labrador, how do we do that? Well, put people first. Crown Lands: there are so
many issues with the department of Crown Lands it's not even funny. I would
venture to say that 30 per cent of the people that call my office have an issue
with Crown Lands.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, some people would say we
are at a disadvantage because of our spread-out population of 525,000 people.
It's a unique opportunity for us to have land, for us to have a cottage. So how
is it that it takes two to three years to get a piece of Crown land? That's
still beyond me. I still have never had an answer for it.
I've heard people say, oh, no, it only takes 60 or 90
days. I challenge anybody in this province who has gotten a piece of Crown land
in 60 or 90 days, let me know, please, because I haven't had one person in my
district who got it in 60 or 90 days. They're waiting years, so that's something
that I think that we should get a handle on as well.
The outfitters here in the province, they just had a
hard year. I want to acknowledge the outfitters. I just had an outfitter in my
district show me the receipt he had for two guys that wanted to come from Texas.
They had to pay for their own flights, five days, for two caribou and two moose
coming up this fall. Hopefully they get to see it. Thirty-six thousand dollars
for the two of them. That's amazing revenue to bring into the province.
Hopefully, the outfitters get to do their thing coming up now in the fall, open
up, and we have a great fall hunt with those guys as well, and girls.
People with disabilities; seniors, once again; the most
vulnerable, for the most part: This is why we pay our taxes; we try to keep them
in mind. It's incumbent, I feel as though, on all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, too. Let's not just shut ourselves in and say: Do you know what?
It's not my problem. It's all of ours issue. You know the ones that are the most
vulnerable in your communities.
I'm not just talking to the MHAs; I'm talking to
everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you know somebody who might
appreciate a bowl of soup or a phone call or something like that, reach out to
them. It's incumbent on all of us. That's what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
have been known for: to take care of each other. I know we can do that, because
we've done it in the past and we can do it again.
Data centres: In Grand Falls-Windsor in 2016, we had a
proposal for data centres to come. It would have brought hundreds of millions of
dollars over years to the province. At the time, for one reason or another, it
wasn't done. Dame Moya Greene mentioned it when we had a conversation, that this
would be a great place for data centres. I think it's something that we have to
address moving forward. I think it's something that can be brought here. When
you talk about technology and the future of this province, something like data
centres can definitely benefit us here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Great things are going up in the Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans District. Marathon Gold and the mining, I can't thank those people
enough for coming up. They have been giving so much to the communities already.
It's fantastic to see. Of course, the employment is what we're going to have. I
thank the government for taking the right steps and getting Marathon Gold up
there and keeping them engaged. They're very happy, from what I'm hearing, so
I'm very happy as well.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank everybody
for doing their part and stepping up. I want to encourage the people across
Canada, across Newfoundland and Labrador. We just went through over a year of
hell. Seventy-five per cent of the population is about to get vaccinated almost.
This place is about to open wide up. Have the best summer of our lives. Travel
around this province; see what it's all about. See the people. Have a great
summer.
In closing, to all of us inside the House of Assembly,
I encourage all of you, please, remain humble in your jobs.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to have just a few words on the budget and
the issues today.
First of all, I always, forefront, like to thank the
people of Humber - Bay of Islands for their support once again. It's pretty
difficult running against two parties, but I always said that when you stay in
touch with the people who elected you, they will reward you. I do have and I did
have a great working relationship with all the town councils and all the working
groups and the firefighters, all the seniors' groups. I just want to recognize
them and thank them for their support.
As I said before, back to 1999 when I first got
elected, I'll make two commitments to the district: I'll be available and
dependable. Those are the only two commitments I ever made in the almost 30
years in politics. I just want to recognize the campaign team, Donny Johnson and
the campaign team for getting me elected, again. Sometimes it's a tough chore to
get me elected, but it worked out. Thanks Donny and all the crew that helped
out.
First of all, I say to the Minister of Finance, you've
got a tough job. There is absolutely no doubt about it, you have a tough job.
You'll be criticized, you'll be ridiculed and you'll have people coming at you
from all fronts. I've been there back with Hubert Kitchen, and it's just the
nature of the job. I say to all the people of the province, all the interested
groups, all the unions, let's do it in a way that is constructive for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I remember when Clyde Wells made a statement and people
criticized him. He said: If I put horns on my head and I put a devil's hat on,
is it going to change the issue? The answer is no. So what we should do is go
after the issue. This is an issue, collectively, for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is no individual issue here in this province, in
this House of Assembly. It's an issue for the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We're going to have disagreements, definitely. We're
definitely going to have different points of view, that's just the nature. We're
going to have interest groups coming at the government, we're going to have
unions – which they should. That's their role. That's their role, to put their
thoughts forward for their membership.
I remember – I said it before, and I'll keep repeating
it every opportunity I get – in 1992 when there was a major fiscal crisis and
everybody was concerned that the Liberal government was in power that if you
went off and made the necessary decisions you had to make, that you had an
election coming up, and I remember I said to Clyde Wells, and I said it in this
House many times, going to Gillams when I brought it up to him again, some of
the peoples' concerns. He said: I'd rather lose the election with honesty than
win with dishonesty. When he ran in 1993, he received more seats than he did in
1989, even after the situation that he had to face and that he did face.
Honesty, with it all, is a very big part of it.
I'll just go through some of the issues that I know out
on the West Coast and bring them forth and how to deal with it. One of the
biggest issues – and it's a tough issue; it's a federal-provincial-municipal
issue – is housing. It's a tough issue. Social housing, it is definitely a tough
issue. This just can't come on the minister's back or in his department, this is
collectively with the federal government. As much as we put into social housing,
as much as we put into repairs, there's still a great need for it in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
If there's one thing that would help the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, who sometimes are struggling or sometimes just can't
meet the demand that they need for their families, is housing. I don't have the
solution. I know there's money put forth on a regular basis, but if we can solve
the housing issue, if we can help more people to get into housing that they can
afford, that they can say this is ours, they have some form and some type of
stability in their lives, it will make this province much better.
I don't have the answers. I don't think government has
the answers. This is an approach with the federal government, a long-term
approach with the federal-provincial-municipal governments and social groups in
the areas. That's the number one issue that would change a lot of lives for
families and kids in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is housing.
You hear it up in Lab West, it's the same condition.
This is not a knock because I've been in government, out of government and this
is continuous, but that's the biggest issue that I hear is that we can help
people in Newfoundland and Labrador if we ever get a strategy where we can get
social housing where people have stability; stability in their lives so that
they know here's what I have to pay for rent, here's what I can do and the kids
have this sense of belonging and the kids have a sense that they're stable. It
will make some difference. How we do it, I think that is something we all have
to put our minds to and work it out.
Of course, then there's COVID; we've been lucky in
COVID. I'm sad that we had a few deaths through COVID, but a lot of front-line
workers all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – what COVID
made you aware of more so than before are mental health issues. Again, I know a
couple of budgets the province worked on that. We need a mental health strategy.
There are always underlying – often mental health issues. This is not just
mental health because someone has an issue today; this is a long-term strategy
because mental health issues are long term. Once the issue is (inaudible) and
they're struggling and you get help, you can't just say, okay, you're good now,
just cut it off.
If one thing that COVID has shown in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is that our mental health strategy has to be updated
and helped. We probably need a lot more social workers; we need mental help
crisis teams. Housing and the mental health issues during COVID have been two of
the major issues that you hear of people.
You always hear people want to come back to the
province and you deal with the COVID through the Department of Health and
Community Services. But when you hear the people on the end of the line or when
you're chatting to them and they're going through a rough time with the COVID,
of course, we all know, away from their families, then you can't do the things
you can do and, financially, it kicks in. It is a tough time for a lot of
people.
I just want to bring that up to the government. Again,
this is no easy solution – absolutely no easy solution whatsoever. This is no
criticism of our mental health workers, no criticism of the Department of Health
and Community Services as we speak; it is just something that has reared its
ugly head much, much more than it ever has before. You hear it, you see it, you
speak to people and you try to deal with it.
I noticed on many occasions that we're talking about
the economy and oil and gas. You hear some people on one spectrum say let's get
rid of oil and gas, but I always ask the question when they say let's just get
rid of it, drop it right away – the question is: How are you going to pay for
the services that you want? It's a big issue.
There is another thing when you're talking to the
youth. The youth are moving to a green economy. Us old fogeys like it or not,
they're moving to a green economy. What we have to do is put initiatives in
place; put some good strategies in place because the younger generation coming
up today, I can assure you, will find a way to turn our province into a green
economy. They will. It may take 10, 15 years but they will.
I heard the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans
talk about keeping our youth. One way we can keep our youth is to put in place
some kind of strategy for more initiatives for the green economy. They will
develop it. I can assure you, they will. If you want to find some way to keep
the youth home, that is the way to do it, to set up an initiative that they can
roll up their sleeves and show us – listen, this is a new world here now. We
will show you how it's done.
I have confidence in the youth. I know a lot of the
youth that want to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador will do whatever they can
to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a government and others, I would say we
need just to put it in place for the youth to expand and to grow themselves, and
Newfoundland and Labrador will be a much better place – and off the fossil
fuels, but it can't be done overnight.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go through a few things in
the budget here. I'll just pick up a few highlights of the budget. Of course, we
know we're facing tough times. If there's any advice that I can give the
minister, if you want to take it, it's be honest with – and I know you will –
people up front. Tell them, here's the situation.
I can assure the minister – and I know my colleague,
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, said it – I have no problem supporting
government in any good initiative for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have no problem, if there's a good initiative or if there's something that we
have to do as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, standing up and
supporting it shoulder to shoulder with the government, if it's going to be
beneficial to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know myself and my colleague from Mount Pearl -
Southlands discussed this. We're not here in this House to always criticize the
government; we're here to help the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and
help our districts. We had many discussions on this. This is not us and them;
this is all of us together. I know I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague from
Mount Pearl - Southlands, that we will support the government in any good
initiative. Any tough decision that you have to make, if it's in the best
interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, you won't just hear me or my colleague
stand up and criticize because we might get a few brownie points. It won't
happen. It just won't happen. I want to put that out there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to talk about a few things. I just made a few notes on the
Budget Speech that the minister made. You look at the Newfoundland and Labrador
Centre for Health Information: that's going to be brought into the core of
government. I remember going back a nice while; we had them in the Public
Accounts. There were pay increases going down at that centre.
We asked who gave you permission. The chair, who sat
right here – they were sitting right here, right in front of me. They sat here
and they said, how did you get that? Oh, we spoke to the minister, with a wink
and nod, and said go ahead. We said, well, did you get anything in writing? No.
The pay increase was so huge that it even stuck out for the Auditor General.
Just to be able to do it on their own because they're not under government and
they're off on their own.
We were astonished. We said who gave you permission? It
says in the guidelines that you have to get approval from the minister. I'm not
going to get into who the minister was or anything like that, it's just why some
of this makes good sense. The chair, who sat here, said, yeah, I spoke to him
and he winked at me and said okay. That was it. If you ever look at the pay –
I'm sure the Minister of Finance looked at the pay scales down there. It's
unbelievable. They can do it without any questions asked, just walk in.
Bringing that into core of government and putting them
under the same scale as government will save a lot of money. I know it will be
much more beneficial to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Already being done.
E.
JOYCE:
What?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Already being done.
E.
JOYCE:
Already being done? Perfect. That's great news I'll say to the minister.
The other thing is the 911. I had that all arranged
before and we backed off on it. I won't get into the reasons why. I don't have
the figures here now, but I would be willing to bet they have a surplus in their
account, a large surplus. I'm willing to bet right here right now, they have a
large surplus.
When 911 was set up in Corner Brook – and I'm not
knocking Corner Brook. Does anybody in this House – and I asked the minister of
Finance and I asked the minister of Transportation at the time, how did the City
of Corner Brook get being paid by 911 without ever going to tender?
Do you know how that happened? These are the kinds of
things that cost the taxpayers money because they upped their phone bills. Do
you know how that happened? A wink and nod between the minister of Finance at
the time and the mayor of the City of Corner Brook. Let's put it in the City of
Corner Brook, never even went to tender. They're paying the City of Corner Brook
annual rent for 911 in Corner Brook. Plus the City of Corner Brook is getting an
administration fee from 911 and the taxpayers don't even know they're getting
it, so bringing that under core government.
I remember visiting an ambulance service out in
Clarenville. I remember looking at their system they got for ambulance and for
calls. It's well advanced more than 911 – well advanced. You have callers, you
have professional people on the line – 911 callers are great, too, they're
great, but they can track the call, they have a system of what questions to ask.
Yet, for some reason, everybody was protecting their own little territory at the
time; that 911 couldn't come into core government.
I applaud that move and when it's done look at the best
services that you can apply for 911. I advise whatever department in Municipal
Affairs that comes under to look at the best way to supply those services. That
alone will help a lot in the areas around their concerns with 911.
I applaud the workers. I know a lot of them in the
Corner Brook area, but the way it was set up and even right now, still paying
the rental fee to the City of Corner Brook without any tender, whatsoever, and
paying an administration fee to the City of Corner Brook, and the taxpayers of
the province are paying for this all over this province; their cellphone is
paying for that right now as we speak. That's good moves.
I also noticed in the thing: “A House of Assembly
committee will be created to review financial statements, budgets, and the
annual reports of Crown corporations and organizations.” That is a great
strategy; a great move. The only thing I'll ask government on that is to give it
some teeth. Just don't have them come in and say: Okay, here it is. Make people
answerable to the decisions that they make when the funds are given out.
It's a great strategy. I'm sure once we sit down, a lot
of the issues, a lot of concerns that we do have will be taken care of, a lot of
questions you will have. But there may be some questions there that will be
questionable and some things that you may be able to offer suggestions. We all
know, once we know there's oversight then people are more thoughtful and more
apt to make sure that they got everything done in a proper manner.
That is a great idea, and a great suggestion is that
give it some teeth to whoever is on the Committee. I know the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands has been pushing this. I've been hearing this in my ears for
a long while, about him pushing to have this oversight Committee. I'm glad that
the government listened to it and will respond, but give it teeth so that you
can hold people accountable and make suggestions for improvements.
Another good positive thing – and I'm not going to get
into the financial part – is bringing the school boards under the Department of
Education. We hear it here – and I have been trying this for years and even when
you're in government people always got their – but with government we can do
this now. I'll tell you what it is: when people who have coached sports like I
have and been around and I hear it with the youth, do you know one thing we
don't do in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? We always talk about health for the
kids, but we don't open the schools past 3:30 or 4 o'clock.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E.
JOYCE:
In
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want healthy kids, what do you do? You
give them access to facilities. Do you know right now we can't get the schools
open past 3:30? They go home. Ball hockey, basketball, volleyball, gymnastics,
anybody who wants to go in, it can't be done. I will say to the minister, if you
want the youth to be healthy, get the schools open in the nighttime, in the
afternoons so that the kids can be healthy and be athletic.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think people kind of cringe when I get ready to speak
because it is all doom and gloom, but my district has so many gaps in services
and infrastructure that if I want to speak on the reality of the conditions in
my district, it has got to be doom and gloom.
I want to say a couple things, sitting in Opposition a
big part of your role is to critique the government and to hold the government
accountable. A lot of times when you have a district like mine that has been
neglected and has so many gaps in services and doesn't have adequate
infrastructure, a lot of times it becomes negative.
During the election, the ongoing never-ending election
from – I don't know if I can say it – hell.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Pretty close.
L.
EVANS:
Pretty close, yeah.
It was a good bonding time for me and my mother because
we were bubbling together. My mother is older and it was a good experience. We
talked about the Minister of Health because we were dealing a lot with Level 5,
we were at Alert Level 5; we were locked down. I already said this to the
Minister of Health because I took the time to talk to him. She said: You know
the Minister of Health, he's a good doctor. He's a good man.
People see me out there in the media, and people see me
questioning in the House, and part of my role is to be critical because in my
district there are huge gaps in health services, which the minister has
acknowledged. I just wanted to tell people that when you criticize people,
that's one thing, but when you critique a government on their delivery of
services that everybody needs, it's a different thing.
My mother's comments about the Minister of Health, when
he was a doctor, was he was a really good doctor. He had a wonderful bedside
manner. He was very caring and compassionate. I think she said, again, he was a
very good doctor. I just wanted to acknowledge that.
When we look at the team that we have looking after us
during COVID, we had a really great doctor, as our Minister of Health, and we
had Dr. Fitzgerald.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
EVANS:
I
want to acknowledge that. It's not always about criticism and it's certainly not
personal criticism, attack on people. This is something we need to be aware of,
especially at budget time. I just wanted to make that point that we do
appreciate you, Minister of Health – I can't say his name. The people of
Labrador really appreciated you as a doctor.
Moving on now, also I just wanted to talk a little bit
about the search and rescue inquiry that's ongoing. The reason why I wanted to
say that is I think it's important to explain to people.
Back in 2012 when Burton was missing and the community
of Makkovik and the neighbouring communities rallied around and went and helped
and searched; people came down from different communities, going around on
Ski-Doo, in the back of komatik boxes looking for this 14-year-old boy. We never
successfully found him and it was heartbreaking.
People were upset and people were angry and people
protested including myself, all my siblings and everybody. It was so dramatic.
Now, we look, nine years later, and the inquiry is going on; you can hardly get
anyone to comment on it. But I want to explain to the people that it's not
because we lost interest. It's not because we don't care. It's not that we're
not upset. It's important to make that distinction.
Actually, I thought about it last night and I wrote it
down so I could go back to sleep. I said that time moves the pain and
overwhelming loss that we suffer to a place that's not quite – and I couldn't
put a word on it. But time moves that pain to a place where it's not as
crushing. Nine years: to describe how we feel now with time, that pain and loss
of what happened to that young boy that was family and community to us, it
created like a veil, a transparent veil that you could look through. It covers
you but it's always there. You never forget it, that loss that's there.
That pain has changed now to that veil and it's not a
crushing feeling, it's not a knife that stabs you anymore. A lot of people who
go through extreme grief and loss know what I'm talking about. So when the
people in Makkovik and the people on the North Coast are not screaming out on
Facebook, not going to the media talking about the long delay of this inquiry,
it's not because we don't care about what happened to Burton Winters. It's not
because we don't feel the loss. It's not because we're not angry that it took
three days for aerial search and rescue to come and find him within a half an
hour of entering the airspace of where he was. It's important for people to
realize that, but also it's important for people, especially people in
government and people who make decisions on when an inquiry actually happens –
it's important to realize that you're impacting people's faith in the system. I
have to tell you, we don't have much faith in systems. We don't have much trust.
We really don't.
It's important for people to realize that because
sometimes in politics it's a strategy to draw things out. We'll wait them out.
Eventually they'll forget about it and they'll move on, they'll turn to
something else. The media does. We know that. The media loses interest in a day.
That strategy really betrays people's trust. It does. It's important for people
to acknowledge that and talk about it.
Also, just looking at the memory of Burton Winters – 14
years old. When you read about it, they say that he perished because his
snowmobile broke down. His snowmobile didn't break down. Basically, he drove
until he got into the rough ice; I think he ran out of gas. Then he walked for
19 kilometres. If he could have found refuge, he would have actually saved
himself.
It was a long delay. We have to realize that the
inquiry is not about being negative or criticizing; this inquiry is supposed to
be about finding answers to make sure that our children don't suffer the way
Burton Winters did and our families don't go through that loss. So that,
eventually, the pain is more like a veil than a sharp knife stabbing you. Even
though you feel anger, you don't actually come out and talk about it.
I saw it in the eyes of people this winter. As an MHA,
I didn't know if they want me to talk about it. Also, when the inquiry was
coming up, I wasn't sure if they wanted to put forward all those concerns,
complaints, issues and questions. It was just kind of like we just have to let
it be just so that pain doesn't come back. We just have to try and hope that
they do a good job of this inquiry because, if not, it's going to happen again.
Anyway, moving on to our budget – 29 pages. Everyone's
complaint is it's light on the details. I think it's nine sentences for
Labrador, right at the end of the book. It's almost like they forgot: Oh my
goodness, we forgot about Labrador, we have to stick something in there. I'm
being facetious, but anyway.
I'm pleased that there's mention in the budget about
the Nain airstrip. I'm hoping it's a mistake where it says the prefeasibility
study, because we've been waiting now years for the feasibility study. I could
be critical and I could say I'm still disappointed with the provincial
government's failure to step up to cost share. That really created this long
delay.
I went to Nain with the MP for Labrador. The federal
government was willing to step up and cost share. In her words, in front of the
Executive Council, she said that up to 70 to 80 per cent of the cost of the
feasibility study – because they were so concerned of the ongoing delays. Now we
have the $3 million, the cost share, but still we have to go through the
feasibility study. Then, they're going to start construction if the money is
there.
A lot of people in the province don't understand why I
keep talking about the Nain airstrip. The Nain airstrip doesn't have night
lights.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L.
EVANS:
During non-daylight hours, they can't medevac. You can call search and rescue,
as the former minister of Transportation said, but we all know that often, when
you call, they're not available. Even if they're available, it takes time to
mobilize. A medical evacuation is a medical emergency. It's disappointing that
it took so long and it is still going to take a few years, so people's lives
will still be in jeopardy.
There is also harm that doesn't result in death due to
delays. If anyone doesn't believe me, they should listen to a young guy from
Nain who was struck by a snowmobile in the head. In actual fact, he was being
interviewed one day, when we were talking about the Nain airstrip, and he talked
about what the doctor said to him about his condition being legally blind. Some
of it is actually the impacts to his brain and how things could have been
different if he could have been medevaced out sooner.
In addition to that, we have conditions that if you
don't get timely emergency care, it can impact your organs. Organ damage –
irreversible organ damage. It's so important that we have that ability to
medevac. If we had the road, the Trans-Labrador Highway connection, we could use
ground transportation. It would be so important.
That moves me to the next item in the budget that I
want to talk about: the prefeasibility study for the road to the North Coast. I
have seven minutes left; I'm just going to read it so it's in
Hansard. Page 29: “Construction of the
Trans-Labrador Highway is nearing completion. Paving of the highway continues
with a $22.1 million investment this year and we anticipate this vital road
network will be completed over the next two constructions seasons.”
My entire District of Torngat Mountains, the North
Coast, five Inuit communities, one Innu community, either it's going to be
divine intervention where we're going to have a paved highway within the next
short period, or we're not a part of Labrador, because that's the way I
interpret the language. In actual fact, if we're not a part of Labrador, we're
certainly not a part of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
With a road – a road brings so much. A road will bring
so much to my district. It would actually help with housing insecurity. A
building lot right now, the cost of putting in a building lot, not the land, the
cost of putting in a building lot costs $250,000, another $200,000 to $250,000
on top of that, so the cost of a house right now on the North Coast is probably
going to be $400,000 to $500,000; a half a million dollars for a small, modest
house.
Who can afford that? Also the fact that we don't have
road access and we don't have the freight boat from the Island, our building
materials and all of our costs have gone up. Even with repairs, now a lot of
people can't even afford repairs to their house. It's difficult. It's very
difficult for people.
I'm really glad that we have the announcement of the
$200,000 in last year's budget. I was disappointed that there was no real work
done on it, but, hopefully, this year, we'll get to actually do the
pre-feasibility work.
Anyway, I'm trying to be positive. I should talk about
the resilience of our people since Confederation, since Joey and the government
brought us into Confederation. It's hard to do that when I look at the gaps, the
gaps in services and infrastructure development. This didn't happen overnight;
this happened over a long period of time, where we didn't get equal access to
services and to infrastructure. Money has to be shared and has to be divvied
out. I think that actually a lot of it never came to the North Coast but went to
other regions, and over time the gaps got bigger and bigger. You just have to
come to my district and see it.
Now, cellphone service is a luxury. We don't have
cellphone service in Nain. There's a short radius where they put in a short
satellite box on the tower and they do have some cellphone service, but the rest
of the North Coast don't have that. It would be nice. On the North Coast, we
don't have real high-speed Internet. Also, in some areas the infrastructure is
so old that even when the technician comes in, he can't repair it. We get 0.2 to
1.9 megabits per second.
I was in Rigolet trying to be on Zoom, 10 minutes for
it to load and then it worked, but when I tried to do something after hours, I
couldn't get it to load. I wondered then, well, what's happening with our
post-secondary students who are doing courses online? What's happening during a
lockdown when we're trying to have our kids in school? Are they really asleep
and just pretending to watch the tablet that does not actually have anything on
it?
It's also hard to be uplifting and feeling all good,
warm and cozy when the lack of highway access and the removal of the freight
boat have driven the prices of food up. I showed the picture around of the four
pork chops for $28 in the winter. Another one just came up, three freezer-burned
chicken breasts for $44. Now, these are actual pictures. They're a little bit
extreme, but the cost – I can tell you how much coffee costs in Nain because one
of my main staples is coffee.
The issue is 215 little bodies were found buried at a
residential school, and it's a reminder to us that there was real harm done at
residential schools. Not everybody was able to overcome that, and a lot of
people had problems and they didn't do well in life and their children didn't do
well in life. Now, we sit back and we blame them; we blame them for being
alcoholics, we blame them for domestic violence, we blame them for abuse and we
blame them for the inability to parent. It's sad. Even people who were able to
be good parents and able to actually overcome a lot of the hardships, they're
not all there. They're not all whole.
When you look at those 215 little graves – well, it was
actually a mass grave – one thing I want to point out is that with residential
schools, children came home, but they weren't whole. They never really came
home. When you go to boarding school at the age of five –
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
L.
EVANS:
Yes, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Immigration,
Population Growth and Skills, that we now adjourn debate.
SPEAKER:
In
accordance with paragraph 9(1)(b) of the
Standing Orders, the House do stand recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
Recess
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Admit strangers.
Order, please!
Statements by Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Harbour
Main, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue and
Torngat Mountains.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Sunday May 2, I had the honour of attending a food
drive at the Star of the Sea in Holyrood. The food drive was in support of an
initiative called the Little Free Pantries. These are little roadside cupboards,
little mini food banks, if you will, which have been springing up all over the
Avalon Peninsula with the goal of helping people who may be struggling with food
insecurities. They operate on a take-what-you-need, leave-what-you-can,
no-questions-asked basis. The District of Harbour Main has many pantries
throughout the district in communities like Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Holyrood,
Avondale and Colliers, just to name a few.
Ms. Charlotte Wade, one of the volunteers who has led
this initiative in Holyrood, has worked in the food industry her entire life.
She recognized that people were in need, some were struggling to make ends meet
and many unable to put food on their table.
I ask all hon. Members to please join me in recognizing
the founders of this worthwhile initiative, people like Charlotte Wade of
Holyrood. This initiative is growing rapidly throughout the province and I am
proud to say has a strong presence in many of the communities that I am pleased
to represent.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Buckmaster's Circle Community Centre is
more than a not-for-profit; it is the heart of the community and has been
serving residents in the Buckmaster's Circle area since 1993, creating a sense
of belonging and connectedness based on support and respect.
Three dedicated, full-time staff provide social,
educational, recreational, health and employment programs and services to
everyone within the community. Partnerships are essential in meeting the
centre's broad mandate. With Eastern Health's support, the centre maintains an
on-site clinic staffed by a Public Health nurse and part-time nurse
practitioner. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing provides a family support social
worker, one of two positions shared between five St. John's community centres.
COVID-19 required the centre to be creative and change
program and service delivery. During the pandemic's peak, staff provided
outreach services to families and seniors living alone, made check-in phone
calls, provided breakfast bags to school-age children, delivered food hampers to
single-parent families, supported families with technology for school, ensured
residents filed their income tax returns and much more.
I ask Members to join me in recognizing the small but
mighty staff at Buckmaster's Community Centre and their commitment to the people
they serve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ryder Rowsell, a Grade 6 student at Paradise
Elementary, has been growing his hair out since Grade 2. After years of growing
his hair, Ryder has decided it's time for a cut and see his hair turned into a
wig. Not only is he cutting his hair, but he is raising money for Young Adult
Cancer Canada.
Ryder, along with his mother, have been working on a
project and created a GoFundMe page, Ryder's Epic Haircut For Kids With Cancer,
with an ultimate goal of raising about $5,000 by June 23. Ryder says: when
school is out June 24, I'm going to come to school that day with a new backpack,
a new haircut and everyone is going to look at me and wonder, who is that?
Young Adult Cancer Canada, founded in 2000, serves
young adults affected by cancer. Over 8,000 young adults are diagnosed with
cancer in Canada each year and its programs help young adults who have been
recently diagnosed and are currently receiving treatment or have survived
cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Ryder on his tremendous
effort to bring awareness and support to Young Adult Cancer Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I sit in this hon. Chamber today to show my
appreciation for a project that was completed by the Grade 5 to 7 students at
Swift Current Academy in our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
I had the privilege of being included in a virtual
presentation of their deep-learning project. The students' concern was the
speeding that takes place on Seaview Drive through their community. This is the
main road that runs through their community, which is a part of Route 210, but
is indeed the main road in this picturesque Town of Swift Current.
The Grade 5 to 7 students created surveys for the
residents to complete, tracked the number of speeding cars at various times of
the day, organized an awareness walk in their community and also made posters
with the slogan: Slow down. This is a community, not a racetrack.”
I am incredibly proud of these students for stepping
up, recognizing an issue within their community and coming together to create
change and become part of the solution. You're all true community leaders.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I'd like to pay tribute to Travis Winters in
Makkovik, Nunatsiavut, for his quick action and bravery that saved his uncle,
Harold Winters. Travis and Amos Fox were out in a boat near Lance Ground when
their speedboat broke down. Travis's Uncle Harold was nearby and was able to tow
them back to Makkovik. They remained in their boat during the tow.
Close to home, the strain of towing the boat caused the
risers to break away, releasing the tow line. The rope snapped across Harold's
body, knocking him into the frigid water. This created a very dangerous
situation. The unmanned boat, with motor still running, circling Harold in the
water.
Harold was at risk of being hit. Icy waters also
exacerbated a medical condition, impacting Harold's ability to stay afloat,
while putting him at risk of drowning. Travis's large boat made it impossible to
be able to row over and rescue Harold in time to prevent him from being struck,
or worse, slipping below the surface.
As the unmanned boat made its third pass, it was close
enough, so Travis took a great risk and jumped into the boat, resulting in minor
injury to himself and thereby being able to save his Uncle Harold.
Please join me in applauding Travis Winters for his
bravery and courage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, September 28 is municipal election day in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an excellent opportunity for residents to get
involved in their communities.
Prior to entering provincial politics, I had the honour
to serve as the mayor of St. Anthony, and before that, as a councillor for
several years. It was a rewarding experience. It was incredibly busy at times
and certainly not without its challenges, but it did provide me the insight into
the importance of local government.
The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has
been preparing for the election through providing support to municipalities and
guidance on the election process and legislative requirements. A circular has
been sent to towns with information on municipal mail-in balloting and the
department is providing elections training.
Several municipalities are considering and making plans
for a mail-in option, in light of the ongoing COVID pandemic. While the vaccine
roll out is going very well across the province and we reached an incredible
milestone with the 300,000 first doses –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
K.
HOWELL:
–
we do recognize that mail-in ballots is another option to make voting as
accessible as possible to all residents.
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, or MNL, as we
say, is also an excellent resource for communities and is encouraging
participation through the Make Your Mark campaign. We are pleased to provide
$20,000 to MNL to support this work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those currently
serving on councils and acknowledge the recent appointments of Amy Coady-Davis
as president and Trina Appleby as vice-president of the board of MNL. I wish
them both well in their new roles.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in encouraging all
citizens from all backgrounds to consider putting their names forward for
election in the fall.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J.
WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her
statement.
Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side of the House join
the minister in encouraging everyone to run in the upcoming municipal elections
on September 28.
As a former mayor, myself, of the beautiful Town of
Pouch Cove, I have seen the benefits of municipal representation first-hand.
There is perhaps no greater service than to have your boots on the ground and
represent your friends and neighbours at the community level. Many of my
colleagues on both sides of this hon. House have gotten their start, so to
speak, around the council chamber.
I do hope that the department will endeavour to
encourage more women and gender-diverse candidates to step forward and offer
themselves for this upcoming election. Historically, very few women and
gender-diverse candidates have been elected at all levels of government. I look
forward to seeing the minister roll out her plan to address this issue in the
coming weeks.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of
her statement.
I want to give my best to all of the candidates across
the province and the election officials, and thank you for participating in
upholding our democracy.
It's wonderful to see that the municipalities are
accounting for the realities of COVID and are putting a plan in place. It will
serve them well to have their mail-in ballot plans in place and ironed out
before the election. I hope Members of the government are also learning to care
about voter rights in the province during this interaction.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender
Equality.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I am pleased to recognize the recent
groundbreaking appointments at Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. For the
first time in the organization's 70-year history, the top two volunteer roles
are held by women.
President Amy Coady-Davis, who is a Councillor with the
Town of Grand Falls-Windsor and Vice-President Trina Appleby, who is Deputy
Mayor of Torbay, will help guide Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador as
they work to represent the interests of the province's municipal councils. In
1951, there were approximately 50 incorporated municipalities in Newfoundland
and Labrador. Today, there are 276.
Mr. Speaker, the Office of Women and Gender Equality
recently collaborated with Equal Voice to present a campaign college, which was
designed to help women and gender-diverse folks learn more about running for
elected office. I was very impressed by the number of participants who expressed
an interest in being involved in municipal politics.
I am hopeful that women and gender-diverse individuals
look to the appointments of Ms. Coady-Davis and Ms. Appleby, as well as the
leadership of my colleagues the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,
the Member for Mount Pearl North, as well as the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse
au Clair as positive signs. As we strive for more diversity amongst our elected
officials, we encourage folks with a range of backgrounds and experiences to
seek elected office, including in the municipal elections this September, and
provide residents of our province with the representation they so rightfully
deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to recognize Ms.
Coady-Davis and Ms. Appleby on their appointments as the leadership of
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. I would also like to recognize the
work of Equal Voice as an advocacy and action group who work tirelessly to
support, educate and champion women and gender-diverse individuals as candidate
in our electoral systems.
As the September municipal elections approach, I add my
voice to those who wish to see more gender diversity in municipal leadership
across the province. I want all those who's considering candidacy to know that
my phone and email are always open to them. I'm happy to support them and truly
encourage them to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance of her
statement. I would also think to extend our sincere congratulations to Ms.
Coady-Davis and Ms. Appleby on their groundbreaking appointments to
Municipalities NL.
Our caucus knows the importance of having a strong
contingent of women leaders at the table. When our boardrooms, town halls and
Assemblies are truly representative of communities they serve, their decisions
are all the wiser for it. That's why we are disappointed to see that in this
year's Estimates: “… grants to equality-seeking organizations, including Women's
Centres, Regional Coordinating Committees Against Violence and Indigenous
organizations …” took a cut of $405,000.
Once again, this government does a fine job of hitting
all the right talking points but little in concrete action.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud – along with my colleague,
the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture – to speak in this hon.
House today to recognize seven employees in the Department of Transportation and
Infrastructure who provided safety and assistance to our neighbours in Ontario.
Officials in our department work with our colleagues in
the Department of FFA to provide forest fire services throughout our province.
However, when there were multiple forest fires burning
in northwestern Ontario last month, seven crew members and two CL-415 water
bombers travelled to the Mainland to join firefighters in that province.
For five days, captains Scott Blue and Ian White, first
officers Sandra Curlew and Paul Carter and aircraft maintenance engineers Neil
Murphy, Robert Hebbard and Jared Walsh left their friends and family behind to
help protect lives and homes in Ontario.
As a member of the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire
Centre's Mutual Aid Resource Sharing agreement, Newfoundland and Labrador
provides additional firefighting assistance to other parts of the country when
needed. It's reassuring to know that the same assistance will be provided to us,
if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we often talk about the public service
employees who go above and beyond the call of duty to help Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
These seven individuals went to great lengths to help
their fellow Canadians, and we are very fortunate to have them working for us
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in
acknowledging these crew members who work hard to ensure the safety of everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the hon. minister for an advanced
copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the House join
the minister in congratulating these professional staff who travelled to Ontario
to help fight forest fires in that province. We owe a debt of gratitude to Scott
Blue, Ian White, Sandra Curlew, Paul Carter, Neil Murphy, Robert Hebbard and
Jared Walsh. I believe missions like this should be celebrated.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who worked in the department
for years, I can personally attest to the high level of training and
professionalism among the public service employees. Water bomber crews are no
exception. This is why I find it somewhat worrisome that the water bomber that
was damaged in 2018 has still not been repaired or replaced. I think it's time
to make a decision.
In closing, congratulations again to the staff involved
and putting service above self.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. I also want to thank the crew in their work in protecting our
province and for taking their skills abroad to help our neighbours in need.
Decisions at various levels of government in recent
years have stretched firefighting resources thin. Their jobs are becoming
harder, not easier. There has not been a water bomber stationed in Labrador West
for some time and the residents miss the sense of security knowing that it was
on hand during fire season. It only takes one spark.
Let's be sure to supply these people here at home and
ensure they receive the respect and resources they deserve, as they should be
for any of our first responders.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any
further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Premier said negotiations are ongoing
with respect to rate mitigation, but he wouldn't disclose what's on the table
because it would jeopardize our commercial decision to have those negotiated in
public. The Greene report calls for the sale of electricity generation,
transmission and distribution assets to the private sector.
I ask the Premier: Are these rate mitigation
negotiations really about selling our hydroelectric assets to the highest
bidder?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.
As we've said all along – and it's been quite public –
the parameters of these negotiations are known to all. Things like equity
arrangements with the federal government, monetizing carbon credits, monetizing
potential future energy within the project, reorganizing the debt structure: all
these things are on the table and we've talked about it publicly.
I'm not sure why the Member opposite says that this has
been in secret. It hasn't. With respect to the ongoing individual conversations
on each one of those parameters, of course we're not going to negotiate in
public. That wouldn't be in the commercial best interests of the people of the
province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will any new arrangements on rate mitigation for this
province involve Quebec or Hydro-Québec?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
As
we suggested, Mr. Speaker, right now the active discussions, the active
negotiations are between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is aware of an opinion piece published in
Quebec's La Presse on May 15, which
basically says the Churchill River hydro is solid gold. Newfoundland and
Labrador is on its knees and Hydro-Québec could capitalize on our weakness to
get a sweetheart deal for more cheap power, creating more wealth for Quebec into
the future.
I ask the Premier: What assurances can you give that we
won't end up with a rate mitigation deal worse than the Upper Churchill deal?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The one thing that I do agree with: it is solid gold.
I'm not going to give away any gold to Hydro-Québec or anyone else, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
We
as a government understand the incredible value that the Upper Churchill asset
can provide to the people of this province and we're going to make sure that it
does provide it to the people of this province. We need to make sure that we're
the primary beneficiary of that asset and the whole entire Churchill River, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the Premier and his administration live up to
that, but the fact that we're hearing that there are conversations going on
without any discussion around what impact it will have on the ratepayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador is alarming to us. Hydro-Québec is rich enough to buy
out our Lower Churchill assets because of the unrectified windfall it is
continuing to reap on our Upper Churchill assets.
Is the province going to make sure Quebec compensates
this province for at least some of the unfairness of any future Labrador hydro
arrangements that involves Quebec or Hydro-Québec?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for
governments in the past including the one that the Member opposite has been
involved with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
What we have said and will continue to say – and I'm not really sure why it's
not getting through – there are no active conversations with Hydro-Québec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
That's fabricated. There are no active conversations with Hydro-Québec in our
government, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how many more times to say it. I guess we
can keep answering the same questions over and over again. I'm happy to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I heard is that there are no ongoing conversations
with your government. That doesn't mean there are not consultants outside doing
it, there are not other people doing it, Mr. Speaker. That's our alarm here. We
want to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know up front what
deals are being made or what they may have to give up. We would hope that it
gets rectified, that we get exactly what we're entitled to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Mr.
Speaker, what we're getting at here is there's a long history of Quebec being
favoured over Newfoundland and Labrador in Confederation. Quebec gets $13
billion out of the $20-billion equalization fund. We get nothing. The Upper
Churchill deal heavily favours Quebec and the federal government has not lifted
a finger to correct that injustice.
I ask the Premier: How can anyone expect that Quebec
will come along and will not come out on top of the rate mitigation and the
Atlantic Loop negotiations, given their history of receiving favouritism within
Confederation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's nice how he collides existential questions about
Quebec's position in Confederation and our active ongoing discussions with the
federation on rate mitigation, a project that we wouldn't have to entertain if
it wasn't for the Member opposite, Mr. Speaker.
We're going to continue to make sure that we're making
good progress. But I will assure the people of this province that whatever
hydroelectric projects we're actively in discussions with will be brought to the
House and there will be an open debate to make sure that people know what deals
we're getting involved with, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
That was a part of the problems of the past. We'll make sure it's fixed in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I remind the people opposite that I think Moya
Greene and others have said – and the former premier himself – that Muskrat
Falls is a part of an energy project included in the Atlantic Loop and is a part
of a national energy project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T.
WAKEHAM:
So
while we can all agree on the overruns, let's not keep that going. I'd sooner
talk about the budget and the budget that was announced. Let's get to that.
Yesterday, I asked the minister if there was an HST
hike included in the fiscal framework. The answer I got, as quoted in
Hansard: “I appreciate the question, and the answer is no.”
But yesterday afternoon in debate, when I was
complimenting the minister for no increase in HST this year, next year or the
year after, she reminded me that she had said there was no HST included in the
fiscal framework. I want to clear up the misconception.
I will ask the minister: Will there be an HST increase
during the 50th General Assembly?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll remind the Member opposite that Justice LeBlanc
said it was a mistake – Muskrat Falls was a mistake. I'll remind him that it's
being referred to as a boondoggle. I don't think he should take any sense of
pride in the fact that his government entered into this project.
With regard to HST, I should remind the Member opposite
that our budget is being well received by bond-rating agencies and I'll come to
that in a moment – very well received by bond-rating agencies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
I
will say, just as I said yesterday to the Member opposite, there is no increase
in HST in the fiscal forecast. That is clear, that was the question he asked me
and I'll say that again; however, in the Speech itself it was clearly noted that
we will look to see if there will be any change to that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
So,
clearly, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not ruled out an HST increase. I'll move
on now.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the fiscal situation of the
province and actions needed, but the people of the province have a right to know
the details and what it will mean for them. So far, we haven't found those
details out; in fact, yesterday, the minister asked me to focus my questions on
this year's budget, so that's exactly what I'm going to do today.
I'll start off and ask the minister: How many people
will lose their job as a result of the English School District moving to the
Department of Education?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to refer now to what the bond-rating agency
has said. DBRS bond-rating agency: “… this budget begins to chart a path toward
fiscal recovery ….” “… we believe that this budget is a step in the right
direction.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
Scotiabank, Mr. Speaker: “Budget highlights the depth of the fiscal challenges
facing NL, presents better-than-expected near-term results, and serves as a
first step on the path to longer-run fiscal sustainability.”
I'll read from RBC: “The path to balance laid out in
Budget 2021 coupled with a commitment to streamline expenses and adjust tax
rates for higher earners signals that the government is serious about 'taking
definitive action now.'”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
Finally, Mr. Speaker, TD: “In what will likely be well received by investors and
rating agencies, Budget 2021 commits to significantly improving Newfoundland and
Labrador's fiscal position in coming years.”
I ask the Member opposite –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Either the minister doesn't know or she doesn't want to
tell us, so I'll ask the minister another question: How much money will you save
when you move the English school board to the Department of Education?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As we've indicated in yesterday's budget and has –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S.
COADY:
–
been confirmed by both bond-rating agencies and creditors, Mr. Speaker, we are
doing a tremendous amount of work –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'll have no chatter across the room. I want to hear
the speaker.
Thank you.
S.
COADY:
–
to transform government. We wouldn't be in this position except for Muskrat
Falls that they're so interested in, Mr. Speaker.
I will say, the analysis is ongoing. The Department of
Education is looking at the work that has to be done to ensure that we be
seamless in bringing the school board into core government, Mr. Speaker, and
that work is ongoing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, it has been confirmed that they're making a significant move by
bringing the English school board into the Department of Education without
knowing how many people are going to be laid off or actually how much money
they're going to save, so let's try another one.
How many people are going to be laid off when we move
the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information to the Department of
Health?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you.
I hear the Member opposite making false accusations
that we're going to be doing mass layoffs. For example, he talks about people
leaving and going and all that stuff.
Mr. Speaker, we have been very, very, very clear: There
will be no mass job loss. There will not be. We are working with departments; we
are working with NLCHI; we are working with the school board; we are working
with others, bringing them into core government so that we can have better
quality, better assurances and better work.
I would ask the Member opposite: What would he do?
Because he hasn't told us one thing that he would do to clean up his mess.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Well, Minister, I can tell you what I wouldn't do: I wouldn't bring in a budget
without knowing exactly what I'm talking about in terms of …
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T.
WAKEHAM:
Yesterday, it was determined that this government offered a 15 per cent equity
stake in the Terra Nova project. I've examined the Estimates, but I cannot find
the money set aside.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Can you please detail
where the money for this equity stake is budgeted?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can do is basically speak to the negotiation,
perhaps, and more so what I can say is what I'm not prepared to do is to discuss
the negotiation of this extremely important asset here on the floor given the
commercial sensitivities, given all the moving parts and given the urgency. I do
not think that would be appropriate.
What I can say is that we are actively involved in this
process every single day with the different players. There is some information
that is out there that has been discussed, but, at this point, what I would say
is that whatever we're prepared to do will be disclosed to the public upon that
time.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
It's kind of like the movie Jerry Maguire,
is it: show me the money.
In the budget, $2.5 million was announced in additional
funding for geoscience data collection and interpretation. However, last night,
in Estimates, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology admitted they did
not have the money, nor did they have the information on it.
Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister of Finance expect a
department to advance a new program that they know nothing about?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question from the Member. We certainly
did have three hours last night of Estimates, talking about all the great things
happening in Department of Industry, Energy and Technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A.
PARSONS:
What I can say is that – again, I appreciate the fact that I did promise to show
you where it was. It is in the COVID contingency fund, I believe, under the
Department of Finance. But the bigger thing I can tell you and I can guarantee
you and I can promise you, just like your quote of
Jerry Maguire: We are going to be
showing the money.
We are showing the money, an extra $2.5 million to the
mining industry. We are going to be taking advantage of the hot streak that
industry is on right now and we've just put our money where our mouth is by in
putting $2.5 million. I'll tell you who's going to be happy, is everybody
involved in the industry: prospectors, juniors, you name it. They're pretty
excited about what our government's stance is on mining.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Mr.
Speaker, this is $2.5 million that we talked about last night. The minister and
his officials could not find this money in the Estimates or even had the
slightest clue about where it was. The minister did note last night that he
could, and I quote: throw the Minister of Finance under the bus.
Mr. Speaker, is the budget wrong? Did the Minister of
Finance misspeak or is the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology wrong?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What's funny is the Member – I'm fine with the Member
trying to throw me under the bus or accuse me of not knowing anything, but he
sat here last night and he complimented the officials in the department for all
the work that they do. Now, he gets here today in Question Period and he's
questioning their ability.
What I can tell you is this: you come back here next
year, if you're in that spot over there in the same role, and I will show you
$2.5 million spent on mining exploration.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I in no way think that the Member here is questioning
the ability of the staff in the department. What he is asking is for the
minister to do their job and answer the questions.
L.
PARROTT:
Thanks.
P.
DINN:
Oh,
you're welcome.
Mr. Speaker, private ambulance workers provide a vital
service to people of the province. Private ambulance workers represented by
Transport and Allied Workers Union local 855 are without an agreement. For some
workers, this dates back to March 2020.
Can the minister provide an update on the status of
these negotiations from a government's perspective?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for the question. As we are
well aware, they've been working through a contract with a conciliation officer
for well over a year now. Those contract talks have broken off. They're also now
moved into a conciliation board situation where we're waiting for two parties to
come forward with their representatives. When that's done, there'll be a chair
put in place and then we'll move forward through that process.
We hope that there'll be a negotiated deal based on
that, because it's such an important thing to have a balance between both the
employer and the employee. A negotiated deal is always the best preference for
all of us.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do hope that those negotiations move along sooner
rather than later.
Mr. Speaker, a briefing note prepared for the Premier
on January 7, 2021, stated that the province received over 100,000 counterfeit
N95 masks, some of which were used by our health care workers, our front-line
workers.
I ask the minister: How did these masks pass
inspection?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My understanding from officials in the supply chain in
Central, these were mixed with genuine masks and the issue was a sample, which
passed muster. It was identified because of information subsequently from 3M,
the other manufacturer, and these were then retrieved.
Some 1,300 of these masks had been used. We have not
been able to find any clinically significant injury or damage as a result of
that. We have returned the batch and are seeking our money back, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Seeking money back is great but this is a health issue
for front-line workers that could be exposed to COVID or any other disease. A
notification was issued by the N95 manufacturer on December 18, but the province
did not become aware of this notification until early January.
I ask the minister: Why did it take so long to identify
such an important issue and have it resolved?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm informed by supply chain that there were some
labelling issues, which have been investigated. The issue has not been one that
has produced any risk or any deleterious effect.
We have time gone by. None of the people who were
involved in the use of these defective, substandard masks have suffered any
health consequences as a result of it. We are in the process of dealing with the
vendor to try and ensure: (a) this doesn't happen again and (b) the value of the
masks is replaced one way or another.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Topsail -
Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find it appalling that he would say there is no risk.
There is a risk if there are masks that are gone out and our health care workers
have the opportunity to wear. There is a risk.
What assurances does the minister have that other
counterfeit health care supplies have not slipped through the cracks, creating
risks of exposure to COVID and other diseases for health care workers?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
As
a consequence of this finding, Mr. Speaker, a review was done of inventory and
nothing untoward identified thereafter.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In this year's budget a new integrated corporate
services model was included for purchasing.
Is the minister abandoning the purchasing model that he
announced in July of 2017 because of these issues with the health supplies?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
No,
Mr. Speaker, in actual fact we're not abandoning it. This is phase one of a
five-step procedure which involved a variety of other back-office functions.
We have been in discussions with the Minister of
Finance to see how we can integrate our learning from the health care system
across government as part of a government-wide purchasing system, rather than
simply one for health. Other areas include such things as payroll, HR and
similar activities, Mr. Speaker. We're building on it, not replacing it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the budget it was announced that the province-wide
emergency 911 service will now become a part of core government, but in
Estimates the minister admitted: We've only reached out to 911 yesterday
afternoon – right around the time of the budget – and I haven't had any
discussions with them yet.
I ask the minister: If you haven't had discussions with
NL911, then what was the basis of your decision?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you for the question.
Mr. Speaker, we did reach out to NL911. We wanted to
discuss with them and advise them what was going to be announced in the budget.
Obviously, we wouldn't have done that further in advance than when the budget
was going to be brought forward by the Minister of Finance.
I want to ensure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
that NL911, when it is brought into government, will not jeopardize the safety
or the stability of that system. The purpose of bringing it in is to find
efficiencies for this government as we move forward with the Department of
Finance's plan, the Minister of Finance's plan. We'll find efficiencies in
things like payroll and finance. It will be good and a better service for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned that decisions are being
made without proper analysis. In Estimates, the minister said, and I quote: I
haven't had any discussions with them yet about jobs and where this will go in
the future. He did not rule out job losses.
Will the minister provide any analysis or breakdown on
how much will be saved and how many jobs will be lost?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the questions.
It is an ongoing situation. We're dealing with NL911
the same way this government is dealing with the school boards, NLCHI, other
entities and those entities that are being brought into government. Of course,
the purpose is to ensure the services that are being offered are not going to be
changed or diminished in any way. But we will be able to ensure that those
services are provided at the same standard that they are now or better, and at
the same time finding efficiencies within government so we can grow our economy,
grow this province and be where we need to be.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, that answer does not provide assurances
about whether there will be any job losses.
The Budget Speech references joint partnerships and
alternate service delivery – privatization language. On the other hand, the
Finance Minister says there will be no mass layoffs. When we asked about moving
NL911 into government, the minister did not rule out job losses.
I ask the Finance Minister: Yes or no, will there be
layoffs as a result of changes to service and program delivery?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I know the Members opposite like to fear monger, but I
will say to the people of the province that we are modernizing and transforming
government. As such, we are working on efficiencies and making very effective
service delivery. We don't anticipate any massive job losses at all.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I will say to the
Members opposite today on the boards, there are over 500 jobs available within
government. So I would say to the Members opposite that there is certainly
opportunity within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for employment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance if she
agrees with Moya Greene's assessment that the Public Service Pension Plan and
the Teachers' Pension Plan are severely underfunded – 50 per cent according to
her, in the case of the Teachers' Pension Plan – and that the unfunded liability
is $1 billion more than it was six years ago.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I've said to the people of the province, we will be
going out and consulting on the Dame Greene report, the Premier's Economic
Recovery Team report. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be listening to the
information that the people bring to us as to what they feel is the future
direction of the province.
I will say to the Member opposite that we are fully
aware of the changes that have been made for the joint partnering on the pension
plans, and have been working very collectively – and I say that sincerely,
collectively – on ensuring those plans are strong and self-sustaining.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Then I ask the minister: Is she aware that Moya Greene's facts are wrong,
inaccurate, that both plans actually have a surplus of assets and are in the
best shape that they've ever been and that the unfunded liability has been
eliminated?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, I think anybody who has a pension or anyone who
has RRSPs knows how very, very good the markets have been this year, and how
strong that recovery is looking in our pension funds, in our RRSPs and any of
our investments, Mr. Speaker. I will acknowledge to the Member opposite that
there has been growth in those pension funds. I think that there has been a lot
of collaboration, discussion and effective work that's been done to ensure the
future sustainability of those pension funds.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
So
there's no willingness to admit that Dame Moya Greene has it totally wrong.
I ask this: Would the minister explain how Dame Moya
Greene got her facts so wrong, since she says she got her information from the
Department of Finance? How could the information be so terribly wrong?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know the Member opposite is trying very hard to get
me to speak directly on the information that is contained in Dame Moya Greene's
report, the Premier's Economic Recovery Team report. Mr. Speaker, I'll let that
stand, they are very knowledgeable and learned people, I'll let them stand for
what's included in their report.
We are very interested in having good discussions with
the people of this province as to how they believe we should best move forward.
We all want a strong, smart, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador and that's
exactly what we're working towards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, the new Acute Care Hospital has been in the forefront during the last
election in the Corner Brook area. One major issue was the PET scanner. This
piece of equipment was committed to be put in the new Acute Care Hospital and
this was confirmed by former Premier Dwight Ball.
I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services:
Can you please provide this House with an update on the status of the PET
scanner for the new Acute Care Hospital?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to inform the Member opposite that the
funds promised to be delivered to the Western Health foundation in trust are en
route. The decision about what, when and what kind of machine will be made by
the clinicians providing cancer care on the ground. The slab for the PET scanner
and the accommodation is there, built into the fabric of the building already,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Another major issue which had been the design for the new Acute Care Hospital is
the laundry services. It was literally put in the design, to the best of my
knowledge as I was involved. There are many rumours in the Corner Brook area and
workers in the Western Memorial Regional Hospital are very anxious of these
rumours and possible jobs.
Can you please provide this House with an update on the
laundry services, if it's included, and the space allocated in the new Acute
Care Hospital in Corner Brook?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I can't quite remember whether the Member opposite was
still on the infrastructure Committee when the decision was made that $100,000 a
square foot was a very expensive footprint for a laundry and that there were
other ways of doing that. My understand is Western Health has gone out with an
RFP to examine options as to how best to provide those services to the entire
Corner Brook area's health care facilities.
The current laundry at Western Memorial will still be
functional for another three or four years so there is time to get this right,
Mr. Speaker, and do it properly. The RFP is on the streets.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of
Women and Gender Equality.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand on a point of order. I'm very disappointed to
hear my hon. colleague, the Member for St. John's Centre, suggest that there
have been cuts to the department of Women and Gender Equality.
I ask the Member to withdraw that statement. It is
simply incorrect, 100 per cent. I will confirm that the budget has been
maintained. As a matter of fact, there has been almost $500,000 added by our
Premier for very important programs such as the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
unit, among many other important programs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
PARSONS:
I
would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Member withdraw the statement as it's simply
not true. Furthermore, I ask that he table the evidence that suggested him to
make such a statement in the first place.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
I'll take that under advisement and review the information.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
SPEAKER:
In
accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission's
meetings held on December 23, 2020, January 5 and May 19, 2021.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During Question Period, there was a question about the
$2.5 million for mining that was announced in the budget. I'll tell my colleague
opposite that it's under the COVID contingency fund services head of
expenditure. It will be transferred to the Department of Industry, Energy and
Technology during the year and reported under the head of expenditures.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The current Registry of Deeds is not mandatory, and
much of which gets registered as errors and ambiguities. Uncertainty abounds
when registering an interest in land, leading to impediments in acquisition and
transference, along with additional unnecessary costs to residents.
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
C.
PARDY:
–
to establish a committee comprised of representatives involved in the land
transfer process to investigate immediate improvements in policy, along with
recommendations for legislative changes to better protect the public's and
Crown's interests.
We know that one of the biggest assets that we have in
the province are our land holdings. Many would say that they are not being
managed properly, Mr. Speaker. We have the Registry of Crown Titles for public
lands and we also have the Registry of Deeds for private lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm trying to hear the petition.
Thank you.
C.
PARDY:
While we made good advances in the Registry of Crown Titles, we do realize that,
as my hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans stated this morning, nobody
in his district ever got a land claim within a couple of years. Usually that's
the limit that it would take, but it's certainly not 90 days. The nature of this
petition is for the Registry of Deeds.
Remember, we have a registry of land deeds that is not
mandatory, but is riddled with inaccuracies and ambiguities. So what happens is
that there are land disputes, land challenges and land transactions that they
need to get the document from the Registry of Deeds, only to find that it's not
accurate. I would say what happens at that point in time is that it costs the
residents an enormous amount of legal fees to try to have control or to attain
or to acquire property. Much of the land in the District of Bonavista, they've
either been squatted on or it's been granted over time. We know the historic
District of Bonavista and Trinity, that they would have such areas.
The suggestion is that we establish a committee
comprised of individuals representing various groups like lawyers, land
surveyors, realtors or developers to look at legislative and regulatory changes.
The last thing I would say is in the budget they
suggested launching a process to maintain and improve service delivery. Maybe
this is one of those that might be on the docket for improvement.
I look forward to the minister's comment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was starting to have a bit of complex there for a
while.
SPEAKER:
I
couldn't see you back there.
P.
LANE:
If
I had feelings they would have been hurt yesterday, I can tell you.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of any democratic
society is the right for citizens to choose their representatives to serve in
the Legislature. This process must not only be carried out in a fair and
impartial manner with all the appropriate checks and balances to ensure this
principle is upheld, it must be perceived as being conducted that way.
The recent Newfoundland and Labrador provincial general
election has brought serious allegations, numerous concerns and inconsistencies
to light, including potential breaches of the
Elections Act, 1991. As a result,
thousands of people were potentially denied their democratic right to vote.
We, the undersigned, therefore call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the
Opposition Parties and the independent Members in the development of terms of
reference for an initiation of an independent investigation of the recent
provincial general election to be carried out by an individual or entity, as
agreed to by all parties and independent Members of the House.
Upon completion of the investigation, to table and
debate the report in the House of Assembly, with a view of seeking
accountability for any inappropriate decisions made and ensuring a legislative
review of the Elections Act, 1991 is
conducted in order to restore the public's confidence in our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition, I realize
that the last point in the petition regarding new legislation or an amendment to
the Elections Act, is being undertaken. I acknowledge that and that's never been
my issue. I'm glad it's being done. Hopefully the Committee is going to do their
work, they're going to consult with people and they're going to make appropriate
changes. That's not the issue.
The issue that's being missed in this whole thing, from
my perspective, we have an independent Officer of the House of Assembly. That
independent Officer of the House of Assembly reports directly to us in this
Legislature. That person was appointed and approved by Members of this House of
Assembly and he works for us. We have a case, as has been outlined here.
We all know the issues that occurred in the last
provincial general election and that Officer of the House needs to answer this
House of Assembly as to all of these inconsistencies. We need to have that
investigation to find out what went on. He needs to be questioned on all
decisions he made, why he made them and so on and have a report for us to debate
in this House.
There's even a section in the Elections Act itself that
talks about if the election is not carried out properly, or if there are any
issues of incompetence or anything like that, he can be removed under the act.
We're just going to pretend that this mess didn't happen and there's something
fundamentally wrong with it. Saying we're going to forget about it and move on
doesn't cut it.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reasons for this petition are as follows:
The Shoal Harbour bridge is in need of replacement and
is in a serious state of disrepair. Residents no longer believe that this bridge
is safe and it is a major cause for safety concerns.
The bridge is a vital link between the communities of
Shoal Harbour and Clarenville and the entire Bonavista Peninsula, particularly
for first responders and other emergencies.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows:
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
L.
PARROTT:
Can
you ask them to stop, Sir?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L.
PARROTT:
Thank you.
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for safety and emergency
response to remove and replace the Shoal Harbour bridge.
Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for quite some
time. Originally, back in 1992, Manitoba Drive was transferred from government
to the Town of Clarenville. I'll note that Manitoba Drive does not include this
piece of infrastructure.
In 1993, the towns of Clarenville and Shoal Harbour
amalgamated and, again, in 1994, Balbo Drive was transferred. When that was
transferred – again, this piece of infrastructure is not a part of Balbo Drive –
there was never a formal transfer agreement put in place. At that time, Minister
Efford was the minister; he wrote a note and said that this transfer of the road
could not have any adverse effect on the communities from an economic
standpoint.
This bridge is condemned. It was inspected in '95 and
at that time, there were serious upgrades required. It was scheduled to be
replaced in 2014. There have been multiple conversations with many previous
ministers of municipalities, Transportation and works and two previous Justice
ministers.
There have been letters, legal letters written with a
legal position that the Town of Clarenville does not own this bridge. The
province hasn't even given the town the courtesy to reply to the legal opinions.
As a matter of fact, one member from Transportation and Infrastructure called
and said there will be no response and hung up on the town manager, which is, in
my opinion, very disgraceful.
What I find even more astounding is that after the
province has made this position that they do not have ownership, in this year's
ICIP funding under comments, when they recognize this bridge they clearly say –
after they have said a hundred times – they don't own this bridge: Funding would
be contingent on the town taking ownership of this bridge. Ownership would need
to be handed over prior to any project proceeding. This is coming from the
department that says they don't own it, but they're also saying they have to
transfer it before they're going to give any funding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious safety concern for the
residents of Clarenville. The residents of Clarenville can't take this on just
based on risk and the risk associated with the overruns of any bridge of this
magnitude: the silt, the cost of any pile work or anything associated with the
replacing of this bridge.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is the
province's piece of infrastructure. They tried to hide it away and I strongly
suggest that they take a second look at this.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The current provincial
Animal Health and Protection Act came into effect in 2010 and was
last updated in 2013. The changes at that time did not address, however, strict
enforcement, adequate penalties or in-depth animal care standards that would
improve the welfare of animals in care – including companion animals. In short,
the act continues to fail the companion animals and livestock of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Those on the front lines working with abandoned, abused
and neglected animals – including chartered SPCAs in this province – are a
valuable resource in terms of animal intake for the above-mentioned animals.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon this House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to perform a
comprehensive review of the Animal Health
and Protection Act in active consultation with chartered SPCA branches in
this province.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad to raise this today; it's a
very important item. I'm very familiar and I have very good friends who work
with me and who are neighbours in the community who I know volunteer their time
with the SPCA on a variety of issues.
I just want to take a few minutes to explain some of
the problems that the current act has in relation to trying to do the right
thing our furry and feathered friends that are in our care or serve as service
animals. For example, animals that are brought into care from an RCMP seizure,
if it's around an animal complaint of some kind they often get tied up in court
cases. We therefore have a volunteer organization now tasked with having to take
care of these animals. Sometimes the court processes go as long as a year or
more, as we know.
Certain situations, if there are animals that need
particular care – such as neutering, for example, or spaying the animals – those
decisions cannot be made until these situations are cleared up. You often have
important services that can be provided to the animal, seized and tied up by
problems in the court.
The RCMP and the RNC are obligated under the act to
investigate animal-related complaints; however, the officers, as we all know –
and as I spoke to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety of the day – are
often very busy and unfortunately in many situations, and, in fact, probably the
vast majority of them are not trained in what to do and how to respond to these
animal complaints.
It's suggested the SPCA does need to be deemed as first
responders under the act, therefore you would have someone who's trained and be
able to deal with the thing.
My final point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that for
everybody just to understand that we have an organization such as the SPCA
providing an important community service and they have to fundraise to do this.
We really need to increase our funding for those volunteers on the front line
and let's take a look at that act.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Orders of the Day.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's always a privilege to speak in the House and to
speak on the budget is obviously a bigger privilege because you're speaking for
the residents, the constituents who put you here.
Budgets have a different meaning, I guess, than a lot
of other things that happen in the House, the legislation and a lot of other
important work, but a budget affects every single one of us. In some way or
another, a budget has an impact on every one of our lives.
One example I give when you look at budgets, you look
at government and you look at this House is during elections, there were lots of
conversations about elections. When you go campaigning and go around and you
knock on someone's door and they say: I don't vote. I have no interest in
voting. Government don't do anything for me. Why am I going to vote?
We all hear that, I know I hear it more times than I
want to hear it. We all hear it regularly. It's an unfortunate assessment that
people have of government. Now, we're part to blame and successive Members and
governments before us, but that's an issue that I guess we live with and we try
to work on every day, but my response has always been, everything you do in your
life, government has some input in it. Whether it's your licence, your vehicle,
it's the road you drive on, it's the school your children goes to, it's how fast
you drive down a road, it's when you go to the gas station, the taxes on the gas
and I can go on and on.
Every part of a person's life, government has a big
role to play, and it really astounds me sometimes when I go and hear this from,
what I consider to be, intelligent people as well. I think it's a role that well
all take on when we run for office, you accept that, but you always feel that
you're trying to change it. Whether I've changed it in my time since I've been
there, I don't know. Maybe I have, maybe I haven't.
When you get this opportunity just to sit in House and
speak and look at budget items and listen to lots of banter back and forth and
points being made on both side of the House; they're all valid points. You don't
have to agree with everything and sometimes if you're on the outside looking in
you're wondering if there is going to be blood drawn, is there going to be
fisticuffs because some of the stuff can appear to be pretty heated but a lot of
times that's passion. I believe you have to have passion to do this job.
Of course, the budget comes up yearly and we all – when
you're on the Opposition side you speak to, you lobby government and you
advocate for your constituents. You try to, I suppose, imply and enforce the
government to try to get your views across for your constituents. Whether it be
a busing issue in your area, maybe one of your schools is dilapidated and you
want a new school, whether your roads – I mean we have lots and lots on roads
and we have road issues; we need road paving.
All of this always comes back to one thing, it comes
back to a budget. We can all have a wish list that is very long or very short,
but the budget is the final decider and, of course, that's decided by
government. So when we look at lots of items, we can talk lots about budget and
you go down through the itemized list, I guess one of the issues that jumps out
at me – and we're looking at this budget now – is it is very thin on details.
I guess there was evidence in Question Period today
that it seems like there is a little bit of pushback from the other side when
you ask them question – and they're good questions. There is no one out there
today working with the English School District who are not concerned about their
job or their spouse's or their son's or their daughter's job, or their mother's
and father's jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
There is not a soul out there in this province who is not worried about that.
But when the question is asked, I personally believe –
and it is what I adhere to and you can ask anyone in my district, I never
hoodwink people – if I don't know the answer, I don't know the answer. But to
not give an answer and to come back in defiance and to come back with listings
about what other bond agencies that have never probably set foot in this
province have to say, it's a bit insulting, Mr. Speaker, because that's not the
question that was asked.
The question that was asked is about the people that
are home today or at work today wondering and having water cooler talk: Have I
got a job tomorrow? Have I got a job next month, next year? There is no evidence
in there. There is nothing there in the documents I can see that really jumps
out at me. Well, I have Estimates tomorrow night for Education so I'll get an
opportunity to ask more then. But that's the question.
When we look at some of the antics that happen in this
House, that's what people want us to ask. We all go to our districts, we call
people from home or talk to family, that's the stuff they want to ask. How many
job losses? What are they going to do now? What's going to happen to this one?
What do that mean for this one? What do that mean for that school? Everyone is
full of questions. We can go on with questions on any issue, rampant questions.
When you ask a question in this environment here – this
is a pretty high-level area. You're in the Legislature of the province, this is
where these decisions are being made. This is the government who is responsible
for $9.3 billion spending and you get those responses back – no answers. It's
almost like they're insulted when you ask them a question. One response back:
Why don't you tell us what you can do? That's not what this is. That's not the
way this works, Mr. Speaker.
This is the Opposition, this is the House of Assembly;
it's Question Period. If you read through the legislation, the Opposition
questions the government; government don't question Opposition. If they feel
that we have all the answers, well maybe they should move out of the way and let
us go over there and do the job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
Simple.
I sit here day after day after day and I've been here
for year after year after year and it's the same old thing. Unknown to a lot of
Members opposite, they should try – I know some have, there's a couple over
there have that have been on this side of the House, a lot of them haven't; a
lot of them were elected and they went into government. They have no idea what
it's like to be over here, none.
To get a pothole fixed is a challenge, but you're not
in government. To get a summer job, you go in with cap in hand, not to get you
elected, it's because a young girl or a young man comes to you looking for a
summer job. You take it under advisement. You tell them it's probably a slime
chance but you'll try. You might get one, you might not.
Members opposite have to get five, six, seven, eight;
they could get a dozen jobs. We're very lucky if we get one, maybe two. That's
beyond lucky; that's if they can't find anyone else. That's really sad. That is
sad because they're in government.
I'm getting to a point where I'm going with a lot of
this, Mr. Speaker, and I'll get there. But being in government and sitting on
that side of the House and being responsible for a $9.3-billion budget does not
give you carte blanche to treat Members on this side of the House any
differently than Members on that side of the House expect to be treated.
The adage says treat others as you want to be treated
yourself. I try to aspire to that. I like having debates. Don't get me wrong,
I'll challenge. I have no issue with challenging people for debate. I appreciate
debate; actually, I like debate and anyone that knows me well enough will attest
to it. I have no issue having a debate, but you always have to be respectful.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't really find that the respect level in this
House shown by government since this last election is where it needs to be.
We're in a very difficult time in our province, in our
history, probably one of the most difficult times. Budget morning, I went up to
the local Tim Hortons. The manager was there and he says: Big day today. I said:
Yes, it will be interesting to see what's there or whatever. He said: Tough
decisions have to be made. I said: Yes, you're right; we're not in a good place.
He said: I don't have to tell you that. I said: No, we know. Everybody was
saying the same thing. Everyone was accepting. We're not in a good place; some
decisions have to be made. I knew that. I don't think there's a Member in this
House didn't know that.
When you come in and you get a budget that was kind of
like – I don't really know, they're still trying to figure it out themselves.
They're answering questions now three days later. They don't understand it
probably themselves, but we definitely don't. Part of me on Monday, when the
budget was released, started thinking: This sounds like an election budget,
because you could probably go to the polls on a budget like this, based on our
situation we were led to believe.
Moya Greene's report, that's pretty startling. That
shook the world in Newfoundland. There's no doubt about it, Newfoundland and
Labrador's world shook the day that report came out. It's pretty eye opening.
There are things in there we don't know – and this is where I'm going to get to
– where we are with this budget, because there are a lot of things in there; we
don't really know what they mean. I don't know even know if the government
knows.
You're going to review; you're going to assess; you're
going to review; you're going to study; you're going to form a Committee. That
doesn't mean a thing. Who's on the Committee that they can't answer it? What are
you going to assess? We're going to assess, say, the NLC. How long is that going
to take? We don't know. How much money did you save by moving the school
district? We don't know. How many people are coming into government? We don't
know. How many people are getting laid off? We don't know. How much is this
going to save? We don't know. Where did that money come from? We don't know.
It might sound facetious, Mr. Speaker. You can chuckle.
I've laughed myself, but that's where we are. I can't be more facetious when I'm
saying this because it's true. We ask questions. I've been around long enough to
know that sometimes you get tired listening to some of the responses, you get
tired listening to some of the questions. I'll be honest; it's not just one
sided. But if we're in a situation now where we are in the province at our time
in history, don't you think it's about time everyone starts giving the proper
answers to the people? Isn't that where we should be?
You've seen these antics back and forth. In Question
Period today you can't help but wonder – and here I am with a smiling face
again, I'm laughing. I've been around here long enough to know and when I wasn't
here, I was right there. So I was pretty close to this place for a long time, a
lot longer than most in this place. You know the one term that I just start to
laugh at every time I hear it? It's Muskrat Falls. It's the be-all and end-all.
It's the buzzword, I get it, but it's kind of been overused now. That's not
going to solve our problems, Mr. Speaker. That's not solving our problems by
pointing the finger.
I said to the Premier today, I wasn't here; I didn't
agree to Muskrat Falls. That ship has sailed. As well, the Upper Churchill has
sailed. That's as silly as me looking across the way and blaming Members
opposite for Upper Churchill because it was done by a Liberal government.
There's no difference. The only difference is the calendar. It was in the '60s;
we're in the 2000s. That's the only difference. There's no difference
whatsoever.
But then you're met with laughter and snickering, and
what they're going to do and the responses back. It's the buzzword on Muskrat
Falls and what you did to us. I didn't do anything to you on Muskrat Falls. I
had no more say on Muskrat Falls than Members opposite had a say in it. I was
here in the building; I never had a vote. There used to be stuff presented. I
remember being back when we were up in government. We didn't have a better
understanding than anyone in this House or anyone in this province. We were all
citizens. We were all spectators.
I still think there were good parts of it. It was a
mismanaged project and all that, but that's for another day. My point is why
every single time you ask a serious, valid question, you get the response back:
Muskrat Falls. I mean it's unbelievable. The Premier himself was quoted as
saying he wanted to look forward, not backwards. He wanted to do everything on a
go forward. Don't look back; don't look in the rear-view mirror, look ahead. I
heard that. I said that's great to hear. I was really encouraged when I heard
that. He said that when he first became leader. Who is over there talking about
Muskrat Falls and the former Premier Williams? He himself. Chirping at me. Very
good, b'y. Great to see you take your own advice. That's very comforting.
That's what we're dealing with. Why wouldn't the public
get cynical when I'm cynical? I'm sitting here looking over. Our Finance critic
today did a great job on his questions. He kept asking valid questions. He was
told about what the bond-rating agencies thought of the budget. Unless I'm
losing my sight or I can't read anymore or whatever, I never saw anything
written down about what the bond agencies thought. It's avoidance, it's deflect
– avoid, deflect, avoid, deflect. Do you know why? They don't have the answers.
They don't know the answers. I went through all that. They don't know anything.
You go through it – I don't know.
So Estimates tomorrow night I'm not expecting a lot,
Mr. Speaker. I'm not going in with any expectation. I respect the Minister of
Education, I do. I've known him a long time. I'm not expecting a lot. I'm really
not. I'm going to go in with a very open mind. I don't have to take a lot of
pads of paper to write notes I don't expect. It will be deferred; we'll get back
to you later. We may, we may not. We don't really know, but that's what we're
dealing with.
I listened to the commentary this morning coming in on
the road and do you know what was said on the radio stations? There's no
analysis or we don't know the analysis. We don't know what's going to become of
this. We don't know what the outcome of that is. This has to mean layoffs. I
said, wow, that sounded like Question Period yesterday because I asked similar
stuff. My colleague, the Finance critic, he asked similar stuff. We got similar
answers.
Does that tell me it's a good budget? It may very well
be a great budget but we don't know and, unfortunately, they don't know. Here we
are, Mr. Speaker, and that's the situation we find ourselves. That's going to be
the rallying cry to this budget. If you ask me, that will be the story of this
budget. 2016 had a different theme. That was pretty drastic. It was high tax
with no cuts and it was hated by every single person in the province. This may
hit every person in the province but we don't know.
Mr. Speaker, on that note I want to move a
non-confidence amendment. I'll now move an amendment, seconded by the Member for
Harbour Main, that all the words after the word “That” be deleted in the motion
before the House, Motion 1, and the following words be substituted: “this House
exposes this government's failure to properly plan and implement strategies that
will create the conditions for the growth of economic opportunity and jobs in
Newfoundland and Labrador building effectively on our strengths.”
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
This House will recess now as we review the amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Upon review of the amendment, I find that the amendment
is in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.
I guess to get back to my conversation I was having, I
don't know if it's called a Budget Speech or a conversation, but I'll continue
on.
I think that you're going to see it evident through
most of our budget debate over here, and I've already alluded to it, is the lack
of detail. That shouldn't be – that shouldn't be. This is not a new government.
It's a new government with a new Premier, but there are a lot of familiar faces
there; there are a few new faces. This is their third election so we shouldn't
be flying by the seat of our pants. Based on the economic times we're in – it's
well documented, the talk of the country and we hear it every day: we have to
make bold decisions, we have to hit this lever and that lever. Sometimes it
feels like we're in an excavator but we have to hit some levers, there are a lot
of levers in motion.
Yet, we get a budget – and, again, I'll go back to it –
no answers, there are no details. They're grasping at straws. It's like last
night they didn't know where $2.5 million went and now today they're scrabbling
and they figured out it came out of COVID. I'm not so sure if that was
discovered today. We don't even know exactly what's accurate and what's not
accurate. You don't have the details. When you can't tell me if one person has
been laid off, or two people are laid off or if you save five cents, or $5, or
$5 million or $50 million, that's pretty scary.
I guess, the crux of the problem is when you look at
things, on March 27 we got the results of the election, and regardless of what
people may have suspected, in this election no one knew what was happening.
We're now into June 1, the budget was presented, we know it was gone to print a
week or so ago before that, so it was finalized probably even a week or so
before that; not a lot of time. The Greene report was released in between all of
that, plus you had a swearing-in of Cabinet, plus you had the swearing-in of the
House of Assembly, new faces. A lot of these things had to be put into place,
and then you're trying to get a budget in place. That's why we're getting what
we're getting. That's why they're so scant on the details because they really
don't have the details.
Now, is that acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the voters
should ask that question. It's too late now, they have the decisions made. I
don't know if it is acceptable or not. That's not for me to say. I don't think
it's acceptable. We have a province in a fiscal situation that it's supposedly
in, we could be having to save upwards of $900 million next year. We don't know
what's coming; that could be a rough year next year.
But I'll go back to the point again, I can't believe
these decisions are made, affecting people's lives, and there's no real, proper
analysis done. They could draw the numbers out –
G.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
B.
PETTEN:
–
they can draw the numbers out.
The Member for Corner Brook underneath the mask, I
heard a muffle of Muskrat Falls again, so I'll go back to that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
All
I can hear –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
It's very muffled, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
It's very muffled, but it's Muskrat Falls. It's the rallying cry, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
See?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, again, for that protection, Mr. Speaker.
See, this is where they get a bit sensitive, because
when you don't like the message, you respond back with things you think will
hurt.
Muskrat Falls doesn't have that appeal to me or to most
Members on this side of the House. We weren't responsible for it. We all feel a
responsibility as elected Members to try to get things right. I've bantered in
this House many times and I'll banter again, but right now I really believe the
problems we have facing us are too serious for banter. They're too serious for
Muskrat Falls. You have a pothole that might cost a $20 bag of cold patch, but
we can't do that because of Muskrat Falls. That's what you're dealing with. It's
all right to build a $45-million pool in the middle of COVID, but, no Muskrat
Falls. Excuse the cynicism again, Mr. Speaker, but that's what I hear.
I have a lot of Members on that side of the House that
I have conversations with and I actually consider them to be decent friends. We
can have sidebars off and on when we're out of here; they will agree with me
because they hear the same thing. But you come in here and you wear your party
stripe. I get that, too. I understand that. That's not the way it works. There's
no way of anyone telling me you don't hear the same things we heard. People are
tired of that.
The Member for Corner Brook with those comments, he
doesn't realize it; maybe he does, maybe he doesn't care. People are tired of
that. His name, actually, has been brought into the conversation sometimes: time
for him to move ahead. Twenty-five years as a politician, you have to move with
the times.
That meant something at one time, but it doesn't mean
the same anymore. How silly would we look over here if every time they opened
their mouth and we didn't like what they said, we threw Upper Churchill at them?
That's what it's akin to. Same thing. As I said earlier, the only difference
between that and Muskrat Falls is the calendar. Our leader today asked questions
about 2041: What about a share of equalization?
Again, obviously, it wasn't that great, I can't
remember what he said, because if it was anything good, we would probably write
it down and kept note of it. Excuse it, but that's the reality; that's what
we're living in. We don't expect anything, Mr. Speaker. That's what we've
become.
As an elected Member in this House that represents a
large municipality, like the Member for Corner Brook – similar districts,
similar sizes – our people that we represent care. They may not be glued to the
televisions sets watching this, but rest assured, they know what happens in
here. They read; they hear; they know. They're on Twitter. They get an idea of
what's happening. They will ask enough questions.
I'll say this over again and I'll continue to say it
because it should be kept being said: People deserve better than what we're
giving them. This stuff, the times we're into now, to be relegated to this
because we're asking honest, serious questions – to be relegated to be getting
that thrown back at you, Muskrat Falls, how about answering a few questions?
G.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
B.
PETTEN:
The
Member for Corner Brook is hooked on Muskrat Falls, but I'll give him a break
because he does that sometimes. He'll have a free pass this evening; he can say
Muskrat Falls all afternoon.
G.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
B.
PETTEN:
He
keeps saying it, Mr. Speaker. It's pretty scary, actually.
Mr. Speaker, I'll go through a couple of other things
now that when we talk about – I said earlier when I spoke and I touched on some
arrogance, because that's what it can only be described as. That's what I've
been told by others. They see it, they feel it and they sense it. But why?
Because you're given a privilege, an honour, maybe the tough task to try to
govern the province through the situation we're in now, does that give you a
right to be arrogant?
We've sat in this House. I've been in the scrum area;
I've been on microphones outside this place. You can go find it; I've said it
outright: We want to work with government. The times we're in now, the people,
our residents, the constituents want us to work with government. They're not
catchphrase words; they are real words. We really feel that way.
I can speak for this caucus over here, who are a strong
bunch of individuals. I'm privileged to be a part of them. They will tell you
that too, our leader is after saying over and over and over again. We can play
the little rhetoric games here if we want to, but we stuck to it. I'm on record
again; we want to work with government.
The Premier was there – one day I pointed directly at
the Premier and he acknowledged it. We want to work with you, but this is the
way it works. You just go back and read
Hansard and some of the responses and we'll keep getting them. Whenever
government decides they're going to have the wisdom to stand up and speak during
debate – we're not sure when that's going to happen but it will eventually come
– I'd like to hear what they have to say. Are they going to get up and blast
what happened back 10 years ago, 15 years ago, or are we going to deal with
what's happening now, here and now where we are?
Why is it right for Quebec to be getting what they're
getting in equalization? Forget about the formulas, forget about all that, put
all that aside. Forget about what the PCs did or Muskrat Falls but is it right
for Quebec to be getting – that's a simple question and I'll ask anyone in this
Chamber, anyone watching, do you think it's right for them get $13 billion a
year and Newfoundland get nothing? Is that right?
If anyone says, yes, I'm sorry but it's a sad
statement. It's not right.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
No.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, it's not.
But if we always hang our heads, it's because of the
formula. It is because we are not entitled to it, it is revenue-driven. Our
revenues are too high; we don't qualify. There are certain things not included
in the formula. This has been a debate forever and a day, but is it right.
You drive down any street, any main area in Quebec –
and I have in Montreal – it's astounding the amount of construction. There is
billion-dollar bridgework, the place is booming. It's booming. Then drive down
through some of our streets. You see it boarded up, closed up, potholes.
Down in our leader's district, Conception Bay East -
Bell Island, there was a big pothole. There was a big pothole a while back. It
was so big they had to put the pavement over the sandbags. That's how big it
was. But up in Quebec you don't have that problem. Just again, $13 billion; we
are getting nothing, but that's okay because we went to Ottawa and they said:
No, that's the formula.
It is never a bad thing to stand up and fight for what
you believe in. Is it just because you have a Liberal prime minister, a Liberal
government, you can't fight? Really, is that why? Is that why we're not allowed
to fight for our fair share because they're the same stripe? That means nothing
to me; you fight for the people here. Fight for the people you're elected to
represent, fight for the people in this province, fight for the people here in
this Legislature.
That doesn't cut it with people in this province.
Forget about in this Legislature, this doesn't cut it for these people in this
province, so that's fine. I heard some people agree that it's not correct for
Quebec to get $13 billion and we get nothing. But when we asked that question –
and Hansard will tell you, over the
years I've been in this House that question has been asked over again and
repeated people have answered it. It's been riddled with cynicism and potshots
back across the way. Probably blame it on Muskrat Falls. You could have changed
it, pointing fingers and that, but where does that get us?
Now we're talking about we may be bankrupt. No one
knows where we are. Really, no one does know where we are. I'll go back to my
comment on the budget, because they don't know what's in the budget. They have
no idea what's in that budget. If they did, we'd like to know. If they're going
to tell us, this is an opportune time when the world is watching. The media are
there. Everyone wants to know what's in the budget.
Then I get from the Member for Corner Brook: Muskrat
Falls. Under the mask: Muskrat Falls. I don't know if the people at home or
anyone else watching can't see that. That's what it is. It's under a muffle
because he has an extra thick mask on; it's under the muffle, Muskrat Falls.
That's fine. For some reason he can magically get elected election after
election, so who am I to criticize. I guess he probably – CBS might not be the
best place for him to run, but he is doing all right where he is.
G.
BYRNE:
If
you think that's magic, you have another thing coming.
B.
PETTEN:
Trust me; I know it's no magic with you.
G.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
Mr.
Speaker –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Address the Chair, please.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point I'm making is it's answers about questions.
It's questions you want answers to. The government are not here to question us.
That's not what this is about. We have a job to do and I keep saying that. We,
as Members of this House, have a job to do.
Like I said earlier, it's not easy sitting on this side
of the House. Some Members have experienced – not many have. They should sit on
this side of the House. If they sat on this side of the House, they'd get a real
indication of what's really involved, what it takes. I'll tell you, it's not
easy. I'll tell you that, it's not easy. You don't have carte blanche access to
everyone –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
B.
PETTEN:
I'm
trying to behave myself, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, I understand the game, but they understand
something else that never throws me off. Now, I'm hearing there was something
said there, but I missed it. Maybe we'll figure that out later, but I'm not
worried about that either. They should be more worried about running the
province and getting us out of the jam we're in, dealing with people's issues,
but we're not. This is what you're subjected to.
We're asking honest questions. This is honest debate.
We want to know some answers. Is that so hard? What do we get? I'll tell you, we
still haven't figured this out. We have a lot of Estimates to go yet, so it's
going to be a long three hours every night. I hope the staff are well prepared.
I have a lot of faith in the staff. I'm not sure what notes they're going to
give the ministers because it must be pretty simple. We don't know. No idea.
Actually, the briefing for any minister could be no
idea. That's all you have to say. We can ask all the questions all night long,
just no idea; we don't know the answer. That's an easy night for them. Not good
for us, not good for people of the province, but an easy night for them. Mr.
Speaker, looking at the items in the budget, different things have been talked
about here. Before I get into that, I have some items I want to talk about.
There's one other thing I want to bring up, I want to
come back to. It happened yesterday and I debated all day if I was going to
mention it. I debated all last night if I was going to mention it, but I'm going
to mention it. Petitions: We present petitions in this House, not for the Member
for Cape St. Francis's own good benefit, or the Member for Harbour Main's or
Terra Nova's, these petitions are presented for the people we represent. They
come to us and they express concern about certain issues, certain policies and
certain things they want changed. We take it upon ourselves to assist them.
Well, we can present a petition, bring some attention to your issue and usually
the minister responds, and we'll take it from there.
I thought that was a good concept, because the
ministers never always responded. This only happened a couple of years ago. We
changed our Standing Orders and
government opposite rightfully suggested. I thought it was a great idea. I think
the former Government House Leader suggested it. We all thought it was a good
idea to get a response to our petitions.
But it's more of a trend now of late and it's
noticeable – I'm not the only one that noticed it. The responses are getting
fewer and fewer and fewer. Some ministers don't respond. They don't respond to
phone calls. They don't respond to emails. They don't respond to petitions. I've
seen them walk out in the middle of a petition pertaining to them. Is that
right?
E.
LOVELESS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure.
E.
LOVELESS:
I
sit here and listen to the Member, and I'll let him know that he's on the
Opposition side of the House. He leaves the impression that he's the only one
that cares about the happenings in Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
What's the point of order?
E.
LOVELESS:
Am
I given the time to speak to –
SPEAKER:
It's not a point of order.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I never singled him out. I never said his name.
E.
LOVELESS:
The one who walked out of the House; you singled me out.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
I
never said it was you who left the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
B.
PETTEN:
Can
I have the floor again?
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
There's lots of time for you to speak. You had all the main motions this
morning, not one of them got up. The only one who spoke on the main motion is
the Minister of Finance. The only Member who spoke is the Minister of Finance,
Mr. Speaker. That's the only person who spoke on the main motion.
What confidence they must instill in the people of the
province. This is what's running our province, b'y. She's in good hands. I don't
have to say anything. Turn the microphone over there, that's all you have to do.
I can sit back and drink water. This is what you're listening to. I don't have
to do anything. You listen to that stuff coming across the way.
Well, what have I said wrong? Unnerve people? I never
said anything about any particular person leaving the House. I saw it, and I
don't think it's right. If I'm going to be accused of saying something like that
and points of order because I was calling out something that I didn't agree
with, I shouldn't be sitting in this seat. If that's what I'm elected for, to
come in and disrespect and whatever to Members or disrespect the issues and not
say anything or not speak up, I'm in the wrong business. Because that's what we
were put here for. We're put here for that.
The Member for Ferryland was presenting a petition on
roads, and he did a good job of it. He has big issues. I know where he's coming
from because he cares about his district. Every Member in this House cares about
their district. I never said that. That's not what I said at all.
I'm not responsible for Transportation and
Infrastructure. I'm the critic, but I'm not responsible. I'm not the minister.
My name is not over the door on the fifth floor of the West Block – it's not
there. I know that department quite well, and I would hazard to guess that I
know the department probably better than the minister knows it. But he's the
minister. Show some decency and listen to the man's or the woman's petitions.
What's so wrong about that? What's so wrong? Was there some remorse for walking
out on the petition? That's not where we're to. I'm using the petition as an
example, but it ties it back to the level of – just dismissive. It's so
dismissive. They're dismissive of us, people see that.
Our last sitting there last month, or whenever we were
here that first week for Interim Supply, I remember we were here and there was a
bit of kerfuffle in the House. I did an interview on it and my simple question
was – all we want is just a bit of respect. I don't think we're asking for a
lot. We're not asking for government to do anything miraculous, just show us a
bit of respect. That's all.
Respect is a big thing, Mr. Speaker. It's only a word
if you don't – words don't mean anything. You can say you respect someone, but
you have to show it. Respect is huge – huge. Again, like I've said, and people
in this House know me, too, if I said something that was probably off – I don't
mind apologizing. Not a bit. I don't mind, if I do wrong. My life has been like
that. Trust me, I've made lots of mistakes, lots of them, and as everyone else
here, but you have to be respectful.
I'm singling out an issue, not a person – but the
person came out and disclosed their self – that I didn't agree with, that I
didn't think was right. What makes that so wrong? I challenge anyone in this
House that if they see stuff to speak up, no matter what side you're on. That's
what you should be doing. That's what people want us here for.
I don't get elected to this House of Assembly by
sitting down and nodding my head and agreeing with everything that's happening,
nor do I get elected by disagreeing with everything that happens. But people
respect – almost every one in this House are respected and elected because they
stand up for the people in their communities. They are standing up people. Most
people here are stand-up individuals and they're strong in their districts for
that reason.
But you can't come in here because you have the power,
you're in the seat of power, the seat of government and be disrespectful and to
look down on people because we're not on the right side of the House. That's
where I have a problem, Mr. Speaker, and that's something that I'll stand by no
matter what. I've always had that belief.
I have a lot of friends around on this side of the
House, I think, that share the same views and operate the same way. It's a group
that I'm very pleased to be in the same caucus with because we all share the
same view. Show us respect, we show respect, we expect respect back. I think,
for the most part, there's a lot of respect shown on this side of the House but
we don't feel we get it on the other side.
Now, is that how we go forward for the next four years?
Maybe so. I don't know what the next four years are going to bring. I do hope
that they bring more answers. Because if they're going to show that to us, we
can't do nothing about it.
We can fight stuff, as long as they get their 20 or 21
votes in the House here, we can't do nothing about it, other than we can voice
our concerns and lodge our concerns and vote Division in the House and be
public; put out news releases. Ultimately, government has that ability with a
majority.
For the sake of the people in this province, and in
your district, but, obviously, in the province, show a bit of respect. Take
where we are seriously.
Our oil revenues have doubled and they're going to
double next year so it gives you a bit of reprieve. There are a few things going
good, but we still have tough decisions to make. We're all prepared for those
tough decisions, but give us a bit of lead time, give us a bit of a heads-up.
People are expecting that.
You can't just be treating – we're the messenger. I
look at that sometimes, we're the messenger. In our districts we're one of the
population base, we're only one person and we have to bring the good and bad
messages, but ultimately we're the messenger on both ends of it. We bring
messages here; we bring messages back. We're reached out to constantly for our
views and our thoughts and looking for direction, but, ultimately, we're all at
the mercy of the government in power, which happens to be this administration
now.
On a really sincere note, I really think that's where
they need to be focused. Forget about anyone in this House for that matter, but
be respectful and do us right, because I'm not seeing it and I don't think a lot
of people in this province are seeing it. Will I call it out? Absolutely, every
opportunity. We get lots of opportunities in this House and I'm sure my
colleagues do too.
I will not, I cannot, I suppose I should say – maybe
I'm in the wrong by saying this, but I can't sit idly, quietly by when I see
stuff like that happen, whether people are offended by that, that's all I can
do.
It was just ironic, though, when I started bringing up
an example, someone jumped up and was all upset over it. Hopefully, that don't
happen again; who knows, maybe it will happen every time after, who knows. I
really don't know. Time will tell, but that's not the way this House is meant to
be. It's not the way it's meant to be.
I don't expect a minister to get up every single time
and answer a petition. It could be repetitive, I understand that, but show a bit
of respect. At least once get up and give an answer to a Member that they can go
back and talk to their constituents and maybe then provide an answer to them,
because ultimately it's the answer to them.
Ironically, not everyone in his district voted Tory.
There are Liberals coming his way, too, and NDPs. We all get that. Don't ever
lose sight of that. Because you're helping out a PC Member; you're not helping
out a supporter of your party: That's not the way it should be. There are a lot
of Liberals in my district, too. We have independents. We have them all. We have
Alliance; we have them all.
Don't ever lose sight of that. Sometimes that's what it
seems like: It us against them. It's not the way we should be. It's the way it's
looked across the way, when you hear sighs and huffs and that, but that's not
the way it's supposed to be. Because I don't look over, it doesn't mean I don't
hear. My hearing isn't the best either, Mr. Speaker, but I can hear enough to
know the sentiments.
I want to speak about, I suppose, in the budget some of
the issues we talk about. You talk about MUN. You look at MUN over there. I have
a lot of commentary, a lot of back and forth. Actually, a lot of people agreed.
Recently, I stated in an interview that I thought that MUN's spending was
lavish. I have lots of evidence to suggest that I was correct, but what I was
asking for when I said that was: What analysis was done inside MUN? What about
your books? Why doesn't the AG go in and have a look? I said you had to look at
one end of the spending before you could look at raising tuition. They couldn't
do one without doing the other.
Again, I'll come back to my thing, but there's no
analysis done on that. We still don't know that. That's a huge problem if you're
going to take the tuitions in the province now and probably double or triple
them, which they may very well have to do, but we don't know what's on the other
side. Now, I know that they're going to come in the House for Estimates; they're
going to have be subjected to the Auditor General, but now we have put the ball
in motion to lift the tuition freeze. Not that everyone in this province
disagrees with that, but it comes back to, again, what analysis? What was the
analysis that was done? Why didn't we go in and do that before we did what we
did? Because we still don't know.
We hear lots of alarming stories inside about some of
the spending, and we will never know. How will we know that? Will the AG go in?
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. We're told they're going to go in; what are
they going to find? When tuition is doubled and tripled and then we get
declining enrolment from international and national students, then we're going
to have to increase tuition again. Who really wins in that? We really don't know
what's happening inside. We hear about leaky roofs and mould. The buildings need
this; the buildings need that. We don't know because there's no analysis done.
My district, CBS, has overcrowding in schools; big
demand on schools, class sizes. Metro schools have that big issue, anyway, but I
know in my district it is.
We're being told – read somewhere about the money – the
minister said yesterday the money will come back to some classrooms and what
not. That's good. We don't know how much money though because there is no
analysis. We're taking the school district – how much money is coming back to
the schools? We don't know. I'd like to know how many more students assistants
are going to be funded in Queen Elizabeth, Frank Roberts, St. George's, St.
Edward's and Admiral's Academy, I want to know that. I got to go back and say I
don't know. I'd like to tell but they don't know. I ask but we don't know.
True, but they're issues. My colleagues in the metro
area, they all got schools in St. John's area, they have the same problems that
I have. They can't go and tell the principals or the parents in the schools or
school councils how many more positions or how much money or an estimate: they
don't know. They don't know. I got people in my district who work with the
eastern school district; I spoke to someone last night. Do you know what I told
him when I spoke to him last night? I don't know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
B.
PETTEN:
I'm
not being funny either, Mr. Speaker. I'm being totally serious. Because do you
know why? They don't know. Ironically, I asked that question today and they
couldn't answer the question.
My colleague, our finance critic, he asked the same
question today, too, and he was told about all the bond-rating agencies, how
much they rated them, how wonderful they thought the budget was. Like I said,
and I heckled, and I don't know if anyone heard it or not, but why don't you go
to Topsail Road or why don't you go up on (inaudible) Street and ask the people
up there. Don't ask the bond-rating agencies, ask the public what they think.
Everyone is in the same boat, no one knows.
My colleague from Cape St. Francis asked how much the
paving budget is this year. I said I don't know, it's somewhere in there. That's
the problem. There is no one jumping up in arms. Do you know why? Because they
don't know. There is no one throwing figures at me because they don't know. I've
been here long enough to know that I'll get numbers fired at me left, right and
centre and if I was one penny off, they'd turn on me. They're not turning on me
because do you know what? They don't know. Simple, they don't know. Because if I
knew and I was over there, I'd be beside myself. I'm hearing some funny little
remarks but that's fine.
Mr. Speaker, I told myself a while back, every time you
get in trouble in here for getting too carried away, there's a little fellow,
he's on my shoulder now, and every time I feel that urge to go slip off one way,
in the corner of my eye he's pointing at me. I take him with me everywhere now
because it's really helpful.
To my colleagues opposite, I'll let them know, they can
heckle and they can say whatever, I can deal with it later, but that little
fellow is keeping me in line, because I can really go off the deep end
sometimes. I'm really behaving myself to do that. It's just as well to be blunt
and brutally honest.
G.
BYRNE:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
The
Member for Corner Brook, he just came to again, Mr. Speaker.
Muskrat Falls, he said, as he took off the mask because
it has his voice muffled.
G.
BYRNE:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
G.
BYRNE:
Standing Order 49 protects Members from offensive behaviour or language from
other Members. I believe what you will find, Mr. Speaker, is that the language
used by the hon. Member was indeed offensive. It was meant to malign me. It was
meant to diminish my reputation. To suggest that –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order there.
G.
BYRNE:
I
believe there was, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
There is a difference of opinions among Members.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
You
can't write it. There's no way you can't write this stuff. Anyway, I'll get back
to the debate.
Mr. Speaker, we'll get into another couple of issues.
The fisheries is mentioned once, one word something about the fishery. We're not
sure what it is, we haven't figured that out either.
My colleague from Torngat Mountains, she said they put
Labrador in on the end of it just so they didn't forget them.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Nine sentences.
B.
PETTEN:
Nine sentences, there you go.
That's what this budget is. We're going to review
Marble Mountain. Every government for the last 10 years or 15 years said that
has to go, but no one wants to buy it, that's the problem. No one tells you
that. There's no market for it, but government is responsible for it. Whatever
decisions are made, whoever made them, that's neither here nor there; it's done.
It's like the Upper Churchill, it's done. It's almost like Muskrat Falls, it's
done.
Now, you have to try to fix it, like those issues
there, too. You're going to study that again. I know, I was in a room when there
was one study released and no one wanted to buy it. There's no market for it.
Here we go again, we're going to have a study. But this is the catch thing, not
everyone knows those things, so that covers your ground; that buys you a bit of
time: oh, they're going to go study that. Dame Greene said Nalcor needs to be
shut down. I don't know if that's right or wrong. We're going to review that.
Now, will it close? We don't know but we're going to
review it. We're going to find out. We're going to assess it. We're going to
form a Committee. There are a lot of Committees being formed, too. Who's on the
Committee? We don't know. How many is going to be on the Committee? We don't
know. Terms of reference? No idea. How much is the Committee going to cost? No
clue. Budget '21-'22 – what's really funny? Our future? We don't know. No clue.
Together.Again.
is the new slogan to welcome everyone back. It's nice. Maybe they should have
had: We don't know where we're going. We don't know if you're coming, but we're
together. We will figure something out when you get here. That's the way we
operate here. It doesn't matter. We'll get there. All the while, Rome is
burning. We have Committees formed; we're going to deal with that. A Committee
on this, a Committee on that. We're talking to our friends in Ottawa. We might
form a Committee to talk about that, but we're not sure. We're going to get
there.
It doesn't matter because oil went up. Oil is not their
friend. The prime minister doesn't like oil. All his key people, they don't like
oil. The federal minister of Natural Resources is from Newfoundland. Believe
that or not. Could you imagine? An outcry we hear from the oil and gas workers
and our own federal Member is the minister. The national minister is from
Newfoundland. Can you imagine? Can you believe that? That's amazing. He can't
get through. It's respect to him, but he can't get through the juggernaut up in
Ottawa. It's all about green energy. It's all about green.
You can't afford a green economy without having money
to do so. It looks pretty nice on the balance sheet now when you see the
billions of dollars flowing in from oil and gas. It looks pretty nice. No
problem spending that, no problem reducing your deficit. It looks good. In the
speech – I read some of it, but when I found out that they didn't really know
what was in it, I stopped reading some of it. I know some of the lines in it,
there are nice catchphrases; it all sounds great how much they support oil and
gas and where they are with the oil and gas, but it's almost reluctant.
We have $300 million or whatever – $320 million, was it
– from Ottawa, but it was not targeted for oil and gas. They had to get it
through a backdoor approach to get it to pass through the juggernaut in Ottawa.
They had to kind of frame it up another way. It had to be framed another way
because these key people don't like – there's no money spent in oil; it's all
about green. That's what our oil and gas industry has been faced with. That's
the reality we're in.
We see Terra Nova now possibly going and government
apparently – again, it was something to do with a briefing note that they're
holding close, they don't want to talk about it; we'll find out and hopefully we
will get some details on it – buying an equity stake. I have no problem with an
equity stake. If it's a (inaudible), if it's a value for money, if there's a
proper assessment done, analysis. I'm not holding my breath, Mr. Speaker,
because I have a feeling when we dig into that, they won't know that either, but
I live in hope. There's a part two to that, but I'm going to leave that. I won't
say that one.
This is where things fall down. You had the oil
refinery out there. People were going, there were lots of people protesting and
a lot of play, a lot of negativity. Take the money, whatever it was, $20
million, whatever; we'll deal with that now. Push it down the road, we'll figure
that out. Still waiting. That money is soon going to expire. I think it was only
good to June, if I'm not mistaken, the warm idle.
I think the Member for Terra Nova probably is better up
on that than me. I think it was the end of June that money was good for. We're
into early June now so, yeah, where does that leave us? But if we ask the
government opposite, do you know what I'm afraid they might say? We don't know,
we'll see. June 30? I don't know. They may lock the doors; they may not. It all
depends. Maybe it's warm enough we don't need the extra money. I don't know, Mr.
Speaker.
That's where you are with things. That's how sad this
has become. We'll run away, we'll run out and we'll throw $10 million at this.
Yeah, we'll fix that. That will get that solved for a while.
B.
WARR:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
Now.
B.
WARR:
(Inaudible) Member of the Committee.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B.
PETTEN:
Now, Mr. Speaker, see what happens? At least I'll give them one credit. The
Member for Baie Verte - Springdale, is it?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Green Bay.
B.
PETTEN:
Green Bay. Right on, sorry about that. He never said Muskrat Falls. I have no
problem with him having a jab over across the way what I should have done. I
have no issue with that to see the difference. He actually said something that
he believes in. I have no problem with that. At least he never used the same
catchphrase; he actually said something that meant something to him.
See the difference? It's called respect. I actually
respect that man. I have no problem with him saying anything across the way to
me. I listen to lots of commentary. I don't mind that. I listen to criticism,
that's fine, but that's the difference, Mr. Speaker. You say something on this
side of the House, we're all supposed to just bend down and walk away, take our
knocks and go home because we're in charge, we know better.
You see where I'm going with all this stuff? I hazard
to guess – now see they wouldn't understand that, Mr. Speaker, because there's
not a big enough mirror. That's the problem. The mirrors are only pocket size. A
big mirror, they might see it, they can't see it in the mirrors they have. We
all see it; the public sees it.
I don't ever anticipate sitting on that other side of
the House, to be honest with you. I'd say my patience will be gone sitting on
this side, that another time around I don't say I'll have the patience to go
across there. But whatever side I'm on and whatever seat I'm in, I'm not going
to stop doing what I'm doing. You don't get elected by playing some of the games
that are played on that side of the House – you never do. That doesn't get
anyone elected in this House. Being an honest, decent person is what gets most
of us elected.
It's kind of unfortunate sometimes that people don't
see a lot of the stuff that happens inside the Chamber here. It's really
unfortunate, actually, because I think that would open a lot of eyes. When I
first came in here I was really astounded by that, too, and I said, wow. I
remember the first time I sat in this Chamber, I was in the next row over and I
remember looking at the former premier. I couldn't believe how close he was,
because even though I was upstairs, I didn't realize the proximity in this House
and what you can hear on the floor of the House. I realized when you come here,
we're all in this together; you're all here, we should all be in this together.
There are times that has worked that way, there were times we've united as a
group here in this House and we did a lot of good things.
During COVID, I sat here for one session. I think it
was the Interim Supply session. I think there were 10 or 12 of us in the House.
You're dealing with a very serious pandemic. Everyone parked their egos by the
door. We came in, we asked some questions that were important and we passed what
needed to be done to keep the finances of the province going. It was a
respectful debate, but it was at a time when you felt like – you left here and
you said: We actually did something for the betterment of the people of the
province. At a time when there weren't a lot of people willing to go through the
door – it was pretty scary times back then – we all stepped up because we felt
we had to. That makes you feel that you're a part of something.
I remember when I was first approached to run for
politics – as much as I was in the backrooms of politics for a long time, I
remember when I was asked. The former Member was resigning or retiring. They
asked me to run and I started laughing. I still to this day tell that story
because I never dreamed in my lifetime that I would want to do this. I wonder
sometimes now when I sit here and I listen to some of the stuff across the way –
I see how some decisions are made, I see what decisions are made sometimes and I
think back to that day and I wonder what was I thinking? That's not a nice way
to feel, really. It' not.
Ultimately, like all of us, when you go home and you
get over that, you go out and you run into – you do something, you meet someone
and you help someone with an issue. Then you come back and say: You know what;
this is why I'm doing it. But you always need that reassurance; you always need
that rebound to know why you're doing it. That's what this Legislature has
become.
Forty-eight per cent of the people voted in the last
election. I remember the All-Party Committee with the government opposite.
Minister Hogan was chairing it. We're hoping to make headway; we're hoping to
get an opportunity to get answers, to get people's voices heard. I know my
colleague, the Opposition Deputy House Leader for Harbour Main and my other
colleague from Torngat Mountains, are also on that Committee with me; we all
feel the same way.
I heard the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands talk
earlier and he talks a lot about election reform. I support a lot of what he
says; getting to the bottom of it. But if we don't find out what happened, how
are you going to ever bring in new legislation in this House if you don't go
back and find out what went wrong?
My fear is, the membership on that Committee and the
way it's done – we're staying there. I know there was some debate. I know the
Third Party decided not to; we decided to stay there and give it an opportunity
because we felt we owed it to the people of the province, really, not only our
district. You have to have some kind of balance in a Committee like that to make
sure this doesn't happen again.
When you look at the percentage of people voting in
this province, it leaves a lot to be desired. Was it because of mail-in ballots?
Was it because of the fiasco at Elections Newfoundland or is it because of
everyone in this House? If you sit back, I've given this a lot of thought, too,
if you sit back and you let things go on that you don't think are appropriate,
you'll never get them better.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
You
become part of the problem.
B.
PETTEN:
You
become part of the problem, that's right.
The Minister of Transportation got highly offended
there today when I was making reference about a petition, even though I never
singled anyone out, especially him. Is that not part of our problem? Why not
just say, fair game? Why don't you say I accept it? Why don't you say, yeah,
good point? If you don't agree that's fine, too. But isn't that why we're where
we are? That's why people are cynical. They're cynical because of the way this
House has been conducted. They're cynical because of the way we conduct
ourselves and we let this go and we let that go. We're no better than the person
on the other side.
That's the problem, I think. That's one of the biggest
problems facing us as a Legislature and a province. If we want to get voter
participation up, Minister, I think we have to deeply look at what went wrong.
We're going to get engageNL, hopefully; we're going to hear people's concerns. I
encourage everyone out there to get their concerns registered because there are
lots of them. If you want to increase your percentage of voters, that
legislation no doubt will help. That will improve voter participation.
I heard the Members opposite, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and I believe the Minister Responsible for Women, speak about the
municipal elections coming up today, getting more involvement, getting more
females running, getting more people involved. I couldn't agree more, it's
wonderful.
If we don't change the way we do business, that may be
the problem. That may very well be the problem. I know society plays a role,
too. We're in a society where it's not an easy game. Politics is not easy.
Social media, it's not easy for any of us here. But if it doesn't start
somewhere – and I believe there's no reason why it can't start here. It has to
start somewhere. Actually, it should start here. You start using respect and
treating people with respect, and people on the outside will appreciate it.
When we were in a minority government, which was an odd
time, even though every second day there was someone going to the polls, I
didn't like that part of it. There was so much uncertainty. We actually worked
on some things, whether they had no choice or whatever it was, we all agreed on
certain things and we got certain things through as a minority government. That
was working together because we were forced to work together. I get it. This
majority government, and some of the arrogance is not unique to this government
here. It happens. Different party stripes.
The PC Party had problems with that, too. I'm not
saying it's just them, but I wasn't over there when it was the PC Party. I
wasn't there, so I can't speak for them, but I can speak for what I hear on the
street. I'll tell you, the 45 or 48 per cent turnout is only partly to do with
the Elections NL snafu. Most districts, 55 or 56 per cent is the going rate
anyway. Voter participation in my district was not down a huge amount,
percentages. Why was it still so low, though?
Is it because people are tired of the same old
rhetoric? Is it that someone's going to say: I heard you today ask a few
questions, but all that came back was Muskrat Falls? What's that about? What's
that foolishness about?
I'll tell you what I hear: How do you get the patience
to sit out there? B'y, you must have some patience to listen to that.
S.
CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
B.
PETTEN:
And
that from the Government House Leader.
Again, too bad you don't turn the camera and the
microphone over, because that probably would make this place a lot more orderly.
It's constant. You can fire back, but sometimes it's almost like, yes, whatever.
Because people don't want to hear that anymore. We heard it loud and clear.
We've heard what happened.
Again, it's tone deaf, Mr. Speaker. I just said 45 to
48 per cent of the people voted. Why is that? Can anyone answer me that
question? You say it's because Elections NL and because of the pandemic; that's
not right. We have a lot of work to do as an All-Party Committee. A piece of
legislation is only part of it. I think, as a Legislature, we have a lot of work
to do, as people of the province. You have to get people more engaged. You have
to get people back into it.
It will make for better government, too, Mr. Speaker. I
don't think we have the best government, the way we're operating now. Some of
the stuff I hear in this House proves that we don't. You have to be able to
answer questions, Mr. Speaker. You have to be respectful. That's not always easy
to find. But answering questions comes back to the basis of what I said right
through, and I know they don't like to hear it, and I will say it again, it is
all about the answers to the questions.
You make choices; we all make choices. Government makes
choices. That's what we live by: We make choices. They make choices they think
are the best choices. Well, let us know what they are and let's assess them.
Don't tell us this is what we're planning on doing but don't ask us the outcome.
That's shameful; that is shameful.
This is the recipe – the remnants of a budget that was
rushed and there was no preparation done for. There had to be a few sprinkling
of the Greene stuff in there. All the words are there; there's the bowl, there's
the making different moves, pulling leavers – all those words are there. We hear
them over and over and over, it has become the government of platitudes. If you
wanted to just let yourself go off in la-la land you'd feel great until you wake
up and realize that it was only a dream. That's what you're living with.
Everyday is a new one. Today, it's:
Together.Again. I tell you, right
across the screen, I was like come on. We still have thousands and thousands of
people waiting for the vaccination. I have rotational workers contacting me
daily. We still have people getting the virus. My colleague from – the
Opposition Finance critic, I should find his district name because he's in the –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Stephenville - Port au Port.
B.
PETTEN:
Stephenville - Port au Port. His district is being hit hard now with a cluster.
Those people out there – everyone would like to see us get back to normal, me
included. There is no one who wants to get back to normal more than me, but
we're: Together.Again.
His district is dealing with a lot out there today, 17
new cases today. So while Rome is burning, we don't know nothing. We have no
answers to nothing. Seventeen cases on the West Coast. We have lunch hour news
with the teleprompter up in the end of the room:
Together.Again. We're in good hands, that's what we're dealing with.
Excuse the cynicism, Mr. Speaker, but trust me, I'm
speaking for a lot of people in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
I
tell you that, no doubt. That's what the Members opposite don't see.
There was a time in February – if I was guessing, it
was a part of February – government opposite was doing quite well. They were
going to do quite well in the polls. But, again, I don't hide behind my words;
I'll say what I heard. I knew that they were doing quite well. But the tides
turned on them, and when the tides turn, they turned hard. People all of a
sudden came to: Hang on; there's no transparency here. What are we getting here?
We've seen everything in turmoil.
Our Dr. Fitzgerald has been an absolute saint to this
province. Where would we be without her?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B.
PETTEN:
I'll clap to that. I mean the woman is amazing. God help us without her, but
we've seen so much indecision and pass the buck. There were bus drivers popping
up everywhere. This woman was left to deal with it. I commend her for what she
did, but the public saw that.
I never turned the polls. We never turned the
popularity polls. It was a 25-point lead, a 30-point lead in the polls. That
went down to 10 on election day. It went from being this massive big landslide
majority – I was told one time we were losing all of our seats. Every seat we
were losing. I was told that in 2015, too, by the way. We ended up with seven
but I was told that. I wasn't told that by someone on the side of the road,
pollsters were saying that. What happened? The light came on. Someone hit the
switch; hang on. They saw it for what it was.
Once the public saw that, things changed. It wasn't me
changing anything, or anyone on this side of the House – really, probably no one
in this House. No one could stop it because the public woke up and saw it. The
public sees all this stuff. I don't have to sit here and ramble on forever on
it; the public sees it all. They see what happens in here. They don't see it
enough. That's the only sad statement. I wish they could see more.
We try to expose some of the stuff that happens in this
House through our social media account because I think it's important. I think
if Members in this House ask a question, whatever answer they get should be told
to the people of their districts, the people of the province. If a critic asks a
question – some questions we ask are provincial. Answers should also be provided
because people have busy lives. But if we're not getting answers and we're
getting rhetoric, we're getting we don't know, that's pretty sad.
To go back to all of the things that's going on – and
we're talking about elections, we're talking about how do we get more people
involved – we need a long, hard look in the mirror. It needs to be probably led
by government opposite. Again, those are the people with their names over the
doors in the minister's office. You won't find my name over a minister's office
or anyone on this side.
We try to get the attention of the ministers opposite,
the Members opposite; we try to get the attention of the Premier because we have
to look after our own districts. But if you're going to look at the problems we
face, you don't have to look very far. Then you get little digs and little
comments come across the way. Most over there should realize now that doesn't
phase me one little bit.
There was a time it would, when you first get up
speaking in the House. I remember a few seasoned people across the way; they'd
really throw you off. I used to come in, you'd be stuttering and stumbling. It
was a good job. But then as you get up another couple of times, all of a sudden
you realize, ignore that, because people want to hear what you have to say.
Actually, people care what we have to say. (Inaudible) realize that. We might
not be top of the Nielsen ratings, but there are actually people who want to
hear what we have to say. They'll go in and watch us online; a lot of seniors
watch us in the afternoons. They like to hear what we have to say.
Unfortunately, they don't hear some of the nonsense that comes across the way.
So I've tried my best today to try to translate –
because it's hard to hear some of the comments under masks – some of what's
coming across. Hopefully, there may be something come across that's valid. You
know what, we may get an answer to one of the questions we asked, but I haven't
heard it yet. It may be muffled under a mask. You may have offended some people
along the way, but guess what, we never got one answer.
We spent 30 minutes in Question Period today,
collectively, between the Opposition, the Third Party and the independents and
we never got one answer. More questions than answers. I look forward to hearing
what government has to say about – because when the Minister of Finance is the
only person who spoke when she presented a budget Monday and we're into
Wednesday evening and we have not heard from another Member opposite outside of
a few catcalls.
We've asked a lot of questions. Probably in two days
there are about 60 questions asked, if I'm not mistaken, roughly combined. The
only answer we have is: I don't know. I'm not sure. Check back with us later.
You have Estimates; you can find all that out in Estimates. When we go to
Estimates, we don't know. So we'll ask you another 30 tomorrow and we'll come
back Monday and we'll ask you another 30.
Now, somewhere along the way I'm expecting an answer
because we found out today there was $2.5 million. They scrambled this evening.
That came up Monday, we scrambled this evening and we finally found out where
the $2.5 million went. We're not sure if that's accurate, but we're going to
say: Okay, very good. We don't have enough time left in the summer, Mr. Speaker,
if it's going to take us three days to get an answer to every question on the
budget.
We'll be into September or October before we find out
what's going to happen with the school board. That will probably be next year's
budget because they're probably going to start doing analysis today. So while
people are cleaning out their offices over in the English School District
they're going to start their analysis. Guess what they have to do before they
start an analysis? Form a Committee. They don't know who to put on the Committee
because the person who's putting on the Committee, I think, might be going home
too. That's what you're left with, Mr. Speaker.
I know people across the way are tongue-in-cheek
(inaudible) and some of it is, but most of it is not. I'm getting cynical
because this is what we're left to deal with. That's true. I can't be more
honest with you. We sit in our caucus room and we prepare for Question Period.
Members opposite have been in that Opposition caucus room, some have. That's
what you're doing. What can we ask? We can ask an awful lot. What do we get
back? Nothing. Do you continue to do the same thing again and expect a different
result? We have no choice.
I guess if we gave up on that we might as well leave
what we're doing. We'll continue and we'll come in here tomorrow and we'll ask
again, and we'll come back next week and we'll continue to ask. Somewhere along
the way, within the next few weeks, we may not get anything, but hopefully by
next year's budget, the next 2022 budget, we'll have a few things ironed out.
That's if there's anyone left here in the province. That's a big question too. I
think once Together.Again. comes out,
there's going to be a lot of people shuttling off. That's the reality we're in,
Mr. Speaker.
There's not a lot of hope being instilled across the
way when you're asking serious questions and you get back these foolish
responses that mean nothing to anyone. They never heard it the last time, but
people are sick of some of that rhetoric. They just want answers. We want
answers.
If they give us an answer, I might even start clapping
over here. We'd all appreciate an answer. That's what the public wants. I don't
have to like the answer but give us an answer. The days of deflecting – today
asking a question about the school district and getting back with the
bond-rating agencies. Ask them if they know where Water Street or Topsail Road
is. They don't even know where we are. They don't know where the Island is.
They're looking at – oh yeah, great budget. Go drive down Water Street. There's
no sweat to find a rental space. There's lot of it down there. That's what they
need to look at.
Mr. Speaker, as my time expires I look forward to
speaking further on this budget, but I'll leave one thing: The people of the
province deserve answers. We all deserve answers. There's one thing this side of
the House expects – and I hope we get more of it – is respect.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's one hour that we've listened to the Member
opposite, with quite discouraging discourse I will say. I will say this as well:
I just listened to him laugh about bond-rating agencies and creditors. I guess
that does speak to how we got into this mess to begin with, Mr. Speaker, is the
way in which the Members opposite regard our financial situation in this
province. We've spent close to 10 hours, I believe, in Estimates going line by
line through the budget; if they don't have answers it's because they got it
wrong – they got it wrong.
Now, I'm going to start talking about some of things
that I've listened to and the discourse from the Members opposite, because I've
been sitting in my seat listening. I asked on Monday in the speech – and in case
they didn't hear it, I'll repeat it. I said this was our moment to come
together. That this was bigger, no matter our differences, no matter our
politics, no matter our different interests, I asked everyone in this House, as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to come together. What we have is a disrespect
of this House and what we see in the last few days is they got it wrong, over
and over and over again.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit passionate here this
afternoon because I just spent an hour being – I thought it was disrespectful to
the House and I can say that I think there was disrespect shown to the House in
a lot of ways. I heard from a man who even said that – and I'm quoting now – he
was cynical and tired. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the people of the
province want us all to come together at this point – all of us to come together
– to be energized to make sure that we fix the challenges that we have in this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
I
am pleading with the Members opposite to recognize how important this is to the
people of the province – to recognize.
I heard the Member opposite talk about people on – I
believe he said Topsail Road. The people on Topsail Road – because it's in my
district, Mr. Speaker, maybe that's why he used that instance. But I can say
that the people on Topsail Road want us to get on with it; they want us to make
a difference and they want us to clean up the challenges that we've been having,
fiscally. This budget, Mr. Speaker, starts to do that, and it really does get
into the actions required.
Now, I'm going to say the first thing where they got it
wrong, Mr. Speaker. They quickly grabbed up the budget the other day, and they
ran out in front of the media and they said: Oh, you have to find $900 million
between one year and the next. Well, Mr. Speaker, they got it wrong. They didn't
ask a question, they just got it wrong.
The difference in the level of expenditure from last
year to this year is $611 million. The expenses went up by $611 million. Yet, I
have heard time and time again in the last number of days in debate from the
Members opposite that we should go to Ottawa. We should go to Ottawa and get
more money, that's the answer, go to Ottawa and get some more money. Well, they
got it wrong, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. Of the $611 million, which is
different, $476 million is 100 per cent federally funded agreements, yet they
must not want us to have that in the budget –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S.
COADY:
–
because they're complaining about it. They're complaining about it, Mr. Speaker.
They got it wrong, and now they're still complaining about it. Did they not want
us to accept the $320 million for oil and gas? I think, Mr. Speaker, that
Members on this side of the House want us to work hard on oil and gas.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
They want us to do something to continue to develop our economy.
No, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite got it wrong and
they should at least admit they got it wrong; $476 million dollars for 100 per
cent federally funded agreements; $160 million of one-time COVID funding; $51
million for infrastructure cash flows and disaster mitigation. Mr. Speaker, I
can go on, but I've made my point. That point is they got it wrong; they should
have known differently. If they had looked at the numbers properly, they
would've known why they could have asked the question: Why is there a blip in
'21-'22? Oh, that must be the federal government money that we've already
announced, the $320 million, plus the other cost-shared programs.
Then, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I gave an hour's worth of
my attention, my time, my energy, I listened to the Member opposite talk about
the Budget Speech. He went in detail on the Budget Speech. I make jot notes when
I'm listening to someone because I think it's very important that I listen to
the Members opposite, and I do. I know Members opposite would have seen in the
Budget Speech some of the things they asked for, some of the things they said:
Do you know what? Government, if you did this, it would be a good thing for
democracy. We included them in the Budget Speech. This would be a good thing for
my district; this would be a good thing for us to advance in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and we included it.
Mr. Speaker, I listen. One thing I do very, very well
is I listen to the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
Yesterday I listened, Mr. Speaker, and I heard: go cap in hand to Ottawa. I
should've noted how many times, but I must have written it down six times: go to
Ottawa, go to Ottawa. Terrible, terrible thing, we don't get any money from
Ottawa. It's absolutely ridiculous we don't get equalization. Mr. Speaker, I'm
one person that thinks we should get equalization. I'm one person that really
believes that equalization is very, very important to the country. I have been
an advocate of equalization.
I've been an advocate long enough that I remember when
the PC Party said to their federal counterparts: remove non-renewable resources
– and I said, that's a great idea – from the equalization formula. Their
counterparts in Ottawa didn't listen to them. They're always taking about how we
don't have effect in Ottawa; let me tell you what kind of effect we have in
Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the last year we received equalization, in
2007-2008, this province was given from Ottawa $1,788,046,000. That represented
25 per cent of our revenue, okay. Now, they don't ask questions about these
types of things, do they? In the '21-'22 budget, $1.89 billion from the federal
– $1.89 billion, 22 per cent of our revenue.
Are we not effective in Ottawa? I think that shows how
effective we are in Ottawa, yet we don't receive equalization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, Michelle Obama once said, when they go low, you go high so I'm going to
keep it at that level, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the Member opposite talk about – kind of
laughing about it – bond-rating agencies. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, how
important they are. One of the highest expenditures of this government is the
amount we pay down on debt. Let me repeat that: it is our borrowing cost that is
one of the highest expenditures. It's been higher than Education on a number of
times. It's been very, very high.
It's very, very important to listen – again that word –
to what the bond-rating agencies and what banks – who are our lenders and our
creditors – are saying about this. I think they got it wrong, Mr. Speaker, when
they said it doesn't matter. It certainly does matter.
Again, I'm going to say what TD said, this is a quote,
a direct quote: “In what will likely be well received by investors and rating
agencies” – again, Mr. Speaker, borrowing costs are one of our most expensive
items that we pay for in this province – “Budget 2021 commits to significantly
improving Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal position in coming years.” I think
that's to be celebrated.
Let me go on to what the RBC economics has said. RBC
economics: “The path to balance laid out in Budget 2021 coupled with a
commitment to streamline expenses and adjust tax rates for higher earners
signals that the government is serious about 'taking definitive action now.'” I
guess the Opposition got it wrong, Mr. Speaker, when they said it doesn't
matter. It does.
The Bank of Montreal said Newfoundland and Labrador no
longer has the highest debt ratio or the largest budget deficit relative to the
size of its economy. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's to be applauded. That is to be
applauded that we have multiple banks and a bond-rating agency saying and
supporting the budget. Again, I'll say they got it wrong.
Let me just say that – the cancer community. This is
from the cancer community: “Newfoundland and Labrador budget includes
significant gains for cancer community; delivers on increased tobacco taxes, tax
on sugar sweetened beverages, and expanded support for medical travel.” I think
that's a good endorsement. I didn't hear that from the Members opposite. They
want to defeat the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the Heart and Stroke Foundation: We
applaud the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for its groundbreaking
sugary drink levy, a health-promoting policy that will help reduce consumption.
Overconsumption of sugary drinks can be a risk to heart disease; a measure all
provinces should implement to improve heart health. I believe, according to the
Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Opposition got it wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell you a few more things that this budget does and that this
budget includes, because I think Members opposite may have not been thorough in
their reading. I heard one Member already say that he stopped reading the
budget. Well, let me tell him some of the things that it contains because I
think it's important.
Mr. Speaker, we are reducing our deficit. Last year,
when I – it was only nine, 10 months ago – sat in this House I said that we'll
have a deficit of $1.84 billion; this year, $826 million. That is a tremendous
difference, a billion-dollar difference. Next year, we'll be down to $587
million. By '25-'26, we'll be down to $88 million. Will it take hard work?
Absolutely, there's no doubt it will take hard work. That's why I ask for the
support of Members in this House, because I think we must do the hard work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S.
COADY:
I'll quote from the Member opposite. The Member opposite said he asks for a
heads-up. Well, the budget certainly tells him what we're doing. It certainly
gives him a heads-up. He asked for it, we gave it to him and still he got it
wrong. Mr. Speaker, he said there are tough decisions to make – completely agree
– and there are tough decisions in this budget. We have to be responsible. We
have to be diligent.
We are coming out of a pandemic. We have to make sure
that we are focused on supporting families and the communities. We also have to
ensure that we're making the bold steps that are needed to address our financial
concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
COADY:
That's what this budget does. They got it wrong, Mr. Speaker – they got it
wrong.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you some of the other things.
Our borrowing requirements this year will be $1.7 billion. One of the things
that some of the reviewers have said is how strong our Treasury and debt
management is. We're doing more work in that regard.
We're going to continue to focus on bringing down that
second – from being the second highest expenditure in the province to lower and
lower. We're going to focus and continue to focus on our debt management; that
is incredibly essential: $3 billion borrowed last year and $1.7 billion to be
borrowed this year. You know what; I'd like to see that lower and lower and
lower. Some of that money, of course, is the renewal of debt as well, and we're
continuing to drive down costs.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the economic
forecasts while I have a few moments. We're anticipating real GDP to improve by
5.6 per cent. During the pandemic it declined by 5.3 per cent. We're expecting
not only recovery, but a slight increase in that. I think that is to be
applauded.
I also want to point out that retail sales – do you
know last year during the pandemic our retail sales still increased slightly to
1.4 per cent. That was unheard of in the country, yet we were able to do it here
because of the confidence the people of the province have. Now it's going to
rebound by 5.6 per cent. That is an incredible amount of change. That's growth.
Our unemployment rate – I should talk about the employment rate. Our employment
rate is improving by 2.6 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous – our housing starts,
I'll go to that because I'm just watching the time, making sure I don't run out
of time. Our housing units will rebound. What we lost last year we'll recoup
this year. You're not seeing that around the globe or across our country because
we have strength in our economy. Let me talk about the growth. Our growth is in
household income. Our household income is actually growing by 2.9 per cent this
year – 2.9 per cent. Household income is growing by 2.9 per cent. Our economy is
actually strong and we are doing what is right.
I note in the non-confidence amendment that they want
to “properly plan and implement strategies that will create the conditions for
the growth of economic opportunity ….” I just gave how they got it wrong. We are
growing the economy, we are improving employment, we are creating jobs, we are
seeing growth and we are seeing strength. We just need to do more of it, Mr.
Speaker. We just need to have the support of the people of this province and the
people in this House of Assembly who represent the province.
This is not about politics; this is about putting in
place a plan to modernize government, to address our fiscal concerns and to
ensure growth in our economy. We all want a strong, smart, self-sustainable and
vibrant Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the goal of every person in this House
and we have presented a path to get there. We have presented a path that the
people, that our bond-rating agencies and that our lenders are saying: It makes
sense. Yet, I keep hearing from the Members opposite that, no, they want to do
something different, but they have not told us what they want to do different. I
just heard yesterday, for example: Oh, if we change Nalcor, you're going to
drive disruption; if we change NLCHI, you're just going to cause disruption. No,
Mr. Speaker, we can do it properly and diligently.
I'm going to end with this Chinese proverb: The person
who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. On that
note, I'll adjourn debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Before I call a motion, I'm just going to remind everyone that at 5:30 p.m. the
Social Services Committee will be meeting here in the Chamber to discuss the
Estimates of the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
On that note, the motion is that this House do adjourn.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
We will reconvene tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.
This House is adjourned.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.