PDF Version

June 1, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 8

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Are the Government House Leaders ready?

Good afternoon again, everyone.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members' statements from the hon. Members for the Districts

of Terra Nova, Cape St. Francis, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Exploits and Labrador

West.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great sadness today that I speak

to honour a friend, a community leader and World War II veteran of the British

navy who comes from my district.

Born on January 20, 1920, Harold Chesley Bull at the

age of 19 enlisted in the Royal Navy and served on a corvette and a minesweeper.

Harold Chesley Bull passed peacefully away May 28 at the age of 101 years old.

He was not only a national war veteran, but an inspiration to his community and

the entire province.

Mr. Bull was the first mayor of Eastport. He was very

active in the community, a charter member of the Lions Club and the Royal

Canadian Legion, instrumental in the formation of the Eastport Peninsula

Volunteer Fire Department and held multiple positions on many community boards.

I was so proud and privileged to be able to call you my friend, Ches.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express all of our deepest

condolences to his daughter Marion Hunt and her husband Wilf; granddaughter

Krista Moores and her husband Wayne, and to his great-granddaughter Grace

Moores.

Please join me in solemn remembrance of this decorated

World War II veteran and a true hero.

Rest easy, soldier. Your duty is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

WALL:

Mr.

Speaker, on April 9, 1974, the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department was formed. Over

the past 47 years, the department has provided exceptional fire and emergency

service, on call 24-7, to the Town of Torbay and, for the past 20 years, to the

Town of Flatrock as well.

Being active in the community on a regular basis, in

addition to their weekly training, members take

part in fundraising, Fire

Prevention Week education, drive-through open house and parades, Santa Claus

motorcade and a special-needs party organized by honorary life member Joe

Tilley. To have such a dedicated group of individuals who give freely of their

time and talents for the benefit of others is a testament to the department as a

whole.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to recognize Chief Mike

McGrath, a founding member, on his 47 years of faithful and dedicated service to

the department. Such a career has to be applauded. I thank all members past and

present for their efforts and commitment into forming the Torbay Volunteer Fire

Department into the professional environment it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department on their 47th anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

WARR:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the later Harold Small, a former Member of

this hon. House representing the district formerly known as Baie Verte - White

Bay.

On May 17, 2021, the community of Wild Cove said

goodbye to one of its most respected residents, Harold Small, at the age of 85.

Harold was a passionate advocate and worked to improve

the quality of life for others. He was involved in establishing and served as

president of the Northeast Coast Sealers Co-operative. He served as treasurer of

the Canadian Sealers Association; fisherman, seal hunter and fish plant owner.

He worked hard to have a seal processing plant in Fleur de Lys.

He began building boats assisting his father planking

trap skiffs. Recently, he built a longliner while still recuperating from hip

replacement surgery.

Harold Small left an incredible legacy to this family

and to the entire Baie Verte Peninsula. He will be remembered for his

generosity, integrity, loyal friendship and humour.

Our thoughts are with his wife Maxine. His children:

Ivan, Austin, Marsha and Melanie, their families and all who knew him including

the fishing and sealing industry especially those on the Northeast Coast.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in offering

condolences to the Small family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Exploits.

FORSEY:

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Ms. Shealah Hart of Northern Arm who recently

was chosen by BGC Canada as one of the year's Regional Youth of the Year.

In partnership with Hyundai Canada and Mary Brown's,

Youth of the Year is an initiative that celebrates youth leadership and

achievement at clubs across the country.

Shealah has been a member of BGC Botwood for more than

13 years. She has served in numerous capacities at local and national levels; a

dedicated volunteer, an employee and club ambassador representing Newfoundland

and Labrador on BGC Canada's National Youth Council. She is currently enrolled

at MUN in the social work faculty.

Mr. Speaker, as Regional Youth of the Year, she will

continue to work with her local BGC and BGCs from the Atlantic provinces to

foster and support youth leaders.

I would like to congratulate Ms. Shealah Hart of

Northern Arm on being awarded BGC's Regional Youth of the Year and I wish her

all the best in her future endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I'd like to recognize Josh Connors. Originally

from Labrador City, Josh became a writer, producer and author of the successful,

self-published play Small Town Queer .

Small Town Queer

is a full-length play where several friends swap stories about growing up or

living as a queer person in Newfoundland and Labrador. When the play was first

launched, it was a sold-out house and was well received by the community. What

was supposed to be a one-night show, turned into a multi-night, sold-out run.

The book also topped the charts in five separate categories on Amazon's Best

Sellers list.

Small Town Queer

touches on the stories of rejection, love, coming out and many other themes. The

countless stories and feedback from Small

Town Queer has touched the lives of many people, whether through reading the

play or seeing it on the stage.

I am incredibly proud of Josh and their continued

success with the different projects he has presented, including their newest

production The Repercussions of Awkward

Small Talk . I'm excited to see what comes next for this inspiring

individual.

I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating Josh on all their accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Environment Week and World

Environment Day on June 5. Since 1971, we have used this week to raise awareness

about the importance of environmental protection and conservation.

We can all do our part to preserve and restore our

ecosystems through such actions as growing trees, greening our communities and

cities, rewilding gardens and cleaning up ponds, rivers and coastlines.

Every action we take makes a difference. Today, I had

the pleasure of attending the launch of a new project from Clean St. John's,

funded in part by the MMSB, to curb cigarette butt litter found on sidewalks, in

parks and on roadways. I want to congratulate Clean St. John's on this important

initiative.

A significant part of environmental protection is the

effort to address climate change. Through programs such as the Low Carbon

Economy Leadership Fund and our Climate Change Action Plan, we are working not

only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to stimulate clean innovation and

growth, and build resiliency with climate change impacts. I encourage everyone

to look into our energy efficiency programs for those applicable to your home,

such as the rebates for installing insulation in electric- and oil-heated homes,

through our partnership with takeCharge. Additional programs are available for

lower income households through our Home Energy Savings Program with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

As part of Budget

2021 , our government announced $500,000 for an electric vehicle adoption

accelerator program, which will encourage the purchase of electric vehicles

through a $2,500 rebate to customers. We also announced $1 million to help

transition homes whose sole source of heat is oil to electricity. This program

will provide an additional rebate of $2,500.

Mr. Speaker, we can all be environmental stewards in

our province. A piece of litter begins in someone's hands. It is important we

take every possible measure to protect our environment now and for future

generations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the minister in recognizing

Environment Week and World Environment Day in this hon. House.

This year, the United Nations theme for World

Environment Day is Ecosystem Restoration, a theme that I'm sure all of us can

recognize is critically important for our future. We all have a role to play in

preserving and restoring our ecosystems right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe that a government needs to lead the way and set the standard for

maintaining healthy ecosystems.

As decision-makers and lawmakers, we have a

responsibility to protect and defend our province from the effects of climate

change and the destruction of our environment. With this in mind, I believe it's

important to reflect on the recent failure to mitigate the methylmercury

contamination of our Central Labrador ecosystems. We need to do better for

future generations.

I ask for my hon. colleagues to reflect on their roles

and keep our future generations at the top of their minds as we debate and

conduct ourselves each day. Our Indigenous people and the most vulnerable of our

society will be disproportionately affected and bear the brunt of environmental

harm. We owe it to them to do what is right and what is just.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing an

advance copy of his statement. As the climate crisis quickly reaches a tipping

point, we must take firm and swift action, yet firm and swift would hardly

describe the current government's approach.

Although they tout their $40-million investment in

low-carbon initiatives, the fact is they continue to pump $60 million from this

year's budget into the Oil and Gas Corporation and seismic testing. This figure

does not include investments as part of Nalcor.

We call on government to drop its mixed messaging and

act as a true environmental steward of this province and its future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to speak in the House to extend

congratulations to Ocean Whelan of St. John's, who is the recipient of the first

annual Joanne Juteau Childhood Education Scholarship.

The Association of Early Childhood Educators of

Newfoundland and Labrador presented the award to Ms. Whelan today during Early

Childhood Educators' Week, which acknowledges and celebrates the crucial role of

early childhood educators and what they do in the lives of our children.

Ms. Whelan is graduating from the College of the North

Atlantic's full-time ECE diploma program this spring with a 4.0 GPA, while

balancing being a mother to a young child, working part-time in a regulated

child care setting and volunteering.

Joanne Juteau, the namesake for the award, was known

for her contributions to early childhood learning, inspiring and providing

support to many early childhood educators within the field. Ms. Juteau spent

time as a child care centre administrator, an ECE instructor and, most recently,

with the Department of Education as regional manager.

She passed away unexpectedly last year, and her loss is

felt keenly amongst her colleagues in the department. I would like to thank the

association for this fitting tribute to her legacy.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

Ocean Whelan and thanking early childhood educators for their dedication and

commitment to providing essential support to families throughout the year and,

more importantly, during this unprecedented time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for an advance

copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on this side of the

House join the hon. minister in congratulating Ocean Whelan on winning the first

annual Joanne Juteau Early Childhood Education Scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Whelan graduated this past spring with

a perfect 4.0 grade point average. I only wish my transcript reflected the same

but, unfortunately, we can't all have four points. Ms. Whelan's accomplishment

also balances her being a mother, working part-time and volunteering – truly

remarkable.

Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate the Association of

Early Childhood Educators on creating the award. Named after Joanne Juteau,

someone who my office and I dealt with regularly – and we respect it – she made

immeasurable contributions to the field over her lifetime. It's a fitting

tribute to the crucial role early childhood educators play in the lives of

children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for providing an advance

copy of his statement. The Third Party would also like to take the opportunity

to congratulate Ms. Whelan for her receiving of this award.

Every day, people like her work hard to provide the

best care for our children. Just like Ms. Whelan, they often have children of

their own and have to balance work life with a number of other high priorities

in their personal lives.

While we take this moment to honour their achievements

and thank them for their dedication, let us also back up our words by calling on

the government to ensure that childhood education workers are paid a living wage

and receive fair employment benefits.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The budget said nothing about rate mitigation, federal

equity in Hydro, marketing Labrador power or the Atlantic Loop.

Are these issues not part of the government's fiscal

and economic plan for the '21-'22 budget?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before addressing that question, I just wanted to say I

got my vaccine today in a system – the hard-working front-line health care

workers and putting in place (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

the hon. Member knows, we are certainly working hard towards rate mitigation.

This is a conundrum that was laid on our laps; we are actively fixing it.

We've been very open about where we are with the

negotiations; they're ongoing right now between Serge Dupont and Brendan

Paddick. We've baked some of this into the budget of this year. We're hoping to

have something to announce in the short term, but right now negotiations are

still ongoing. I think it would jeopardize our commercial position to have those

negotiations in public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Premier, but the people in Newfoundland and Labrador need to know

that come this fall that their electricity bills will not be unmanageable.

The Premier's Greene report said “the window for new

oil and gas exploration and development has narrowed considerably. Projects that

are not discovered in the next five years … may never be developed.” It also

says none of Ottawa's $320 million can be used towards exploration.

I ask the Premier: Is there a particular reason this

year's budget failed to call on Ottawa to invest in offshore oil and gas

exploration, like they refused to do last year?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. Member opposite knows, we did have an

exploration incentive program in place last year. It was celebrated by Noia; it

was celebrated by the operators. We're hoping that more will avail of that as

that commodity rises from the global economic crisis that we didn't cause, Mr.

Speaker.

We're certainly here to support oil and gas during this

time of transition. We recognize the urgency, the value and we're going to

continue to make strategic investments to ensure that we recognize that value

while it is valuable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're hearing from everybody on every side of the

industry that exploration is key and investment is necessary in the immediate

future for us to be able to create employment in this province.

The former Finance minister used to talk about the lack

of fairness in the equalization formula. Moya Greene also talked about lack of

fairness.

Why was there not a mention of fairness in equalization

in this budget, considering the huge dollar amounts involved?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. Member opposite knows, equalization is a

complex formula and one that is not due to be renegotiated right now. We are

committed to renegotiate it when it becomes available, to renegotiate with the

best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at heart.

We understand the importance of equalization and the

federal transfer payment, and that's why we're working in collaboration. The

efforts that we are progressing with Ottawa, whether it's on rate mitigation, on

child care or on other initiatives, show how a collaborative approach can

actually accomplish things. Equalization, I'm sure, will be no different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Premier knows, it's his Liberal cousins who

pushed it down the road to benefit other provinces at the expense of the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador in not getting its fair share in this

Confederation.

The Budget Speech said “ferries in the province are

heavily subsidized, some as much as 95 per cent ….” “Therefore, we will invite

joint solutions for a more effective way to maintain and improve the delivery of

ferry service ….”

Premier: Do you intend to privatize the ferry services?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member knows, the ferry systems right now are

not working for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians across the province. We need to

look at different options available to us to ensure that they're actually

delivering the services that are required.

I ask the Member opposite: Is it appropriate to have

4,000 runs with no people on the ferry, Mr. Speaker? Is that good use of the

taxpayers' money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The remains of 215 children were found buried at a

former residential school in British Colombia. It's shocking to all Canadians,

but to Indigenous people it's just a harsh reminder of the harm done to

defenceless children.

It's discouraging that this budget does nothing to

address food insecurity, heating insecurity and unaffordable housing for

Indigenous people.

I ask the minister: Why is this the case?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we

certainly join the country in mourning the discovery of the buried remains of

215 children at the site of a former residential school. Flags were lowered

half-mast and we had a moment of silence yesterday. Gut wrenching, unthinkable,

Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of things that this province is

doing. We are engaged weekly, myself and the Premier, working very closely with

Indigenous groups, respectful dialogue, listening to the Indigenous groups on

the things that matter with them. I would say, Mr. Speaker, we are not where we

need to be, but we are at a place in the last number of months with Indigenous

leaders where we have never been before in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier's Greene report recommended a one point HST hike while the

budget did not commit.

I ask the minister: Is there an HST hike included in

your fiscal forecast?

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you.

I appreciate the question, and the answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget forecasted a $900-million slash to expenditures

in the next fiscal year, '22-'23.

I ask the minister: What cuts are contained within the

$900-million cuts that are coming next year?

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me to correct the Member opposite in his

assumptions around the revenues and the expenses of government. Allow me to

inform him and the people of the province that the expenses contain one-time

monies that the federal government is providing to the province, including $320

million for oil and gas.

I'm sure the Member opposite is pleased to see that

amount of money go to the oil and gas industry, considering what some of the

earlier questions were. It also contains some of the federally cost-shared

programs, it contains $20 million for COVID relief and it contains $100 million

for health.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the one-time increase

in expense from this year is because of those extraneous issues and not because

of –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually thank the minister for the clarification. So

it's not $900 million, it's only half a billion dollars that is coming in cuts

next year.

I would ask the minister: How much of that is to be

taken out of the health care system?

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of what I just added up was over $700

million, so I'll just remind the Member of that if you look at the bottom line

differences. Mr. Speaker, we have outlined a number of transformations and

modernizations that we will undertake to ensure that we are most efficient and

effective within government.

We will improve services because of the way we are

going to be delivering services. The people of the province know our financial

situation and they are asking us – as a matter of fact, I would say demanding –

that we as a province start to get our fiscal house in better order, and that is

exactly what we're doing. We went from $1.84 billion in deficit last year to

$826 million this year; we'll go to $587 million next year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer but she really didn't answer it. I

simply asked how much of your fiscal forecast for next year's cuts are coming

out of the health care system. If you know it, tell us; if you don't know, tell

us that too.

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

He is asking me to divulge next year's budget. Can he

focus on this year's budget, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

COADY:

can tell you that we have done tremendous work; we have held the line. The

Canadian institute of health have congratulated the province on holding the line

of expenditure with health care when everyone else across the country has gone

up, Mr. Speaker.

We have been very, very diligent in keeping our health

care costs as low as possible. We have a Health Accord that's doing a beautiful

analysis, I think, Mr. Speaker, talking to the people of the province, how we're

going to deliver health care over the next 10 years.

We have already said to the Members opposite and to the

people of the province we're going to start streamlining back office functions

that will not impact front-line services in health care, but streamlining back

office services. That will help us get to zero on our deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Yesterday, the minister in her Budget Speech put in a table that outlined the

fiscal forecast for the next five years and how they're going to get to a

balanced budget. Today, we're hearing they don't know what's in those numbers.

I ask the minister: Will you let the people of the

province know what your plan is by tabling what's in the fiscal forecast and

what your breakdown is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Member opposite has never been in government

and I know he probably hasn't sat through many Budget Speeches, but always in

budget, including when the former PCs were in power, there was always a

multi-year forecast. Mr. Speaker, we have provided that forecast, we have

provided the transformations that we'll be undertaking for the next number of

years to help us get to a balance budget. We have provided the information on

investments this year.

Perhaps the Member opposite wants to focus on what

we're doing this particular year rather than worrying about outlying years,

because I will be able to say this, Mr. Speaker: we're going to get the job done

of getting to a balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I was a former ADM in budget. I

know exactly how the budget process works and I know that fiscal forecasts –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

WAKEHAM:

are prepared by government departments. So to turn around and say that you don't

know what makes up the numbers that you've put in your own document – not good

enough.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report recommended a

fire sale of public assets in Newfoundland and Labrador, from oil and gas equity

stakes, to ferry services, to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

I ask the minister: Which assets is she looking at

selling off, who is leading the review and when will it be completed?

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

know how the Member opposite likes to put words in my mouth, but what he said

was completely incorrect. I certainly know what's in the fiscal forecast and I

know what's in this year's budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

COADY:

I've been very, very clear and the budget is very, very clear in how we're going

to get to zero, Mr. Speaker. We've talked about transformations. We've talked

about investments. We've talked about growing our economy. We've talked about

incentivising and encouraging people to get better health and more healthy.

We're talking about those things, including having a very good analysis done

through the Health Accord to make sure that we have a very detailed plan on how

we're going to improve our health care system.

The Member opposite keeps trying to put words in my

mouth. To answer his question, Mr. Speaker, I've outlined in the Budget Speech

the assets that we're going to consider. We'll do a full review and make an

analysis, and then from there make a decision on if anything is up for sale.

SPEAKER:

Time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance also talks about transparency. The government

talks about transparency. Surely, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador deserve to know what's in the fiscal forecast, how it's going to roll

out and how they're going to achieve their balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

Moya Greene, again, said Nalcor must be abolished. The budget only calls for a

review ahead of a restructured Nalcor.

I ask the minister: How much of Nalcor will be removed

within government and how much will be sold off to the private sector?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question from the Member opposite.

What I would point out is there are a couple of things

here. I wouldn't want to jump ahead when we talk about how much is going to be

sold off, how much is going to be this, how much is going to be that, because

the reality is there is still work to do.

The big thing that we need to concentrate on is that

Muskrat Falls is towards the finish line of getting done and we need to ensure

that our attention is paid to getting that project finally completed. That being

said, at the same time, we will be undergoing a review of Nalcor as well as

OilCo. I think it's incumbent on us to have a look at these corporations: Why

they were create? What purpose they were created for and where are we now? I

think that would be a purpose of good governance.

We don't have the answers right yet, but what I can say

is we will be holding a microscope to organizations like that to figure out

where do we go that's best for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

hope it's not the same microscope you've been using since 2016.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report said our

equity interest in oil and gas should be sold. In the same breath, she

acknowledged the downside of selling such an asset when oil prices are low.

Is the government considering the sale of any or all of

the province's equity stakes in our offshore energy (inaudible)?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can say is that we are very lucky in this

province to have an offshore industry that has given untold good to this

province in terms of revenues and royalties to this province. We're very proud

of it and we're very thankful for it.

Like anything, when you have an asset, you would like

to know what the evaluation is. Again, we will be looking at an evaluation of

where we are, but I can tell the Member opposite that there are absolute no

conversations ongoing as it relates to divesting of that right now.

I know it's mentioned in the Greene report, but do you

know what? The Greene report is another really solid piece of information that

government can use to figure out the way forward. The same way that I listen to

groups like Noia; I listen to groups like NEIA. We listen to interested

stakeholders all the time and they will guide us in how we move forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Mr.

Speaker, The Way Forward included

Advance 2030 , and here we are.

A briefing note prepared on April 21, 2021, noted that

the province offered to buy a 15 per cent equity stake in Terra Nova. The

minister is offering to buy equity stakes, while the Premier's report is saying

they must be sold.

I ask the minister: What is your stance on equity

stakes in our offshore?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can say is that equity stakes, depending on one

person's, I guess, perspective, they can have different meanings. What I would

say is you have to look at them, how you find them right now. Again, I have

nothing for or against equity stakes. What I do concern myself with is what is

in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it comes to our

offshore oil assets.

Right now, I can tell you that there are a lot of

ongoing negotiations, especially as it relates to Terra Nova. Everybody knows

the situation there, there's been a lot of talk about it. That's where our

attention is focused right now.

Again, right now, we're not talking about investment,

per se; we're not talking about divestment. What we are talking about, when it

comes to Terra Nova, is trying to figure out a way – how do we continue to have

that asset operating in our offshore?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

will both agree on the importance of the Terra Nova. It employs thousands of men

and women directly and indirectly.

There's no mention in the budget of the Premier's

Greene report recommendation to sell the Bull Arm fabrication site.

Is government confirming that this sale is off the

table?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not aware of any sale of Bull Arm or any non-sale

of Bull Arm. What I am aware of is that we do have that asset there. We know

that there are assets that are stacked out there right now. We also have the

FPSO out there. Again, we would like to see some movement on that, but right now

that's not a conversation that's happening. In fact, we've been concentrating on

some other bigger issues within the department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, government turned their backs on the

students in the province and paved the way for massive tuition hikes at MUN.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

PETTEN:

Mr.

Speaker, what analysis has the department done on how doubling and tripling of

tuition will affect student enrolment and debt?

And I find it kind of troubling that Members across the

way find that funny, Mr. Speaker.

I'll wait for the minister's response.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it troubling that the Member would say we've

turned our backs on students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

OSBORNE:

He,

obviously, Mr. Speaker, didn't pay close enough attention to the announcement

yesterday.

To start, we've spent $68.4 million of taxpayer funding

last year, another $68.4 million this year. If we hadn't changed the tuition

freeze, Mr. Speaker, we would be over $80 million per year in just three years

from now. That was unsustainable. The tuition freeze had to end, Mr. Speaker,

but we did clearly articulate yesterday that we were putting additional and

expanded student grant measures in place to help Newfoundland and Labrador

students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister might want to listen to the question. I

asked him what analysis had been done, and that has been my question all along.

You can't just up tuition rates without understanding what's going on the other

side at MUN. I've been well quoted on it and I'll continue to state that fact.

That's the problem: You can't do one without the other.

Mr. Speaker, student groups have already spoken out in

the wake of the Premier's Greene report saying tuition will skyrocket.

What specific protection will the minister make to

protect students?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'll say that we're putting additional and

expanded student grant programs in place for Newfoundland and Labrador students.

The tuition freeze, Mr. Speaker, regardless of where you came from, kept

tuitions low and Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers paid for that tuition

freeze to the tune of $68 million a year, and growing by an additional $4

million a year. We will put in place additional expanded student grant

needs-based programs to help Newfoundland and Labrador students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

guess there was no analysis done, Mr. Speaker.

While tuition is poised to double or triple, does the

minister believe a contract with the Office of the President should spend tax

dollars to buy personal fitness equipment and pay for personal tax preparation?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of that, but if the Member wishes to share the details,

we'll certainly look into it.

On the issue of tuition, Mr. Speaker, Memorial

University has been asking to lift the tuition freeze for a number of years.

They support that. So the analysis is probably done by the people who actually

set tuition: Memorial University.

In terms of the students and the council, or the

Federation of Students, there are only 26 per cent of students in this province,

Mr. Speaker, who actually availed of student assistance last year. Tuitions are

obviously set very, very low at present.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before the minister gives Memorial

University of Newfoundland and Labrador – make sure I get the name correct – a

blank cheque with no control, as a part of the review for the MUN act will he

mandate they annually appear before the Public Accounts Committee?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I believe the Premier has spoken already and said that there will be

more accountability. With more autonomy, comes more accountability. I've said

that and I've been quoted as saying that in the media.

The changes to the

Memorial University Act will come with

greater accountability, including the Auditor General being able to have

unfettered access.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Budget Speech said: “… we will be taking

District into the Department of Education.”

Will the government table its analysis on this? How

much savings will result and how will it produce better educational outcomes

among our children?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I think that our record on improving educational outcomes speaks for

itself: the Education Action Plan , the

$42 million put into the classroom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

OSBORNE:

What we are looking to do is find operational efficiencies, as well as fiscal

efficiencies, Mr. Speaker. The fiscal efficiencies, the savings, will go to the

classroom and will go to improving educational outcomes to put us at a more

competitive edge amongst Canadian provinces, because right now we're lagging

behind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'd like to know what the savings are. I guess we'll

find that out maybe in Estimates Thursday night.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any breakdown on

what jobs will be affected, where these particular positions are located in the

province and how services to children will be impacted?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, there will be no impact to the students in the province. There will be

no downloading of responsibilities onto our administrators or our educators. In

fact, what we need is a unified vision in this province to eliminate the

those savings into the classroom to improve educational outcomes in this

province.

It is too early at this point to determine what the

attrition will be or what the impacts will be, what the savings will be, Mr.

Speaker. But the NLESD – and I've spoke with Mr. Stack and he's committed to

working with us on this transition. As we move forward, we'll have a better

understanding of what the fiscal savings and operational efficiencies will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government, in their budget yesterday, announced a

sugar tax that will be implemented on April 1, 2022, without any details. When

asked about implementing this tax in 2016 this government's Finance minister at

the time said: “As a province, we would have to take on the administrative

responsibilities that would be equal to the functions of the Canada Revenue

Agency ….” This was something that we thought a province of 500,000 could not

take on.

I ask the minister: What has changed?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

The implementation of a sugar tax has been done in

multiple jurisdictions around the world and all across the United States. Five

years has passed since the Member opposite is referring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

COADY:

It's five years since that time and things have changed. We know that the health

outcomes – and that's what we're really focused on here, is a narrative around

health outcomes and making sure that we're doing everything for those health

outcomes.

Mr. Speaker, we are working through the logistics

around the sugar tax, so it will be a bill that will come to this House in the

fall. More details will be forthcoming at that time.

Mr. Speaker, no matter where the administration is, the

point of the matter is this is a positive step forward to ensuring the health of

the people of the province and taking that money then and putting it towards

health and health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we grapple with the discovery of 215 remains at the

site of a former residential school in British Columbia, I ask the Premier: Will

he commit to an immediate review of all residential schools and orphanage sites

in this province, as we as a province have a duty to truth and reconciliation?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for the question. As I

mentioned earlier today, our government certainly joins the country in mourning

the discovery of the buried remains.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed as a government to

respectful dialogue. We empathize with the families and the individuals. We're

hearing some things coming out in the media from the federal government, from

across our fellow provinces and territories and we're certainly committed to

engaging in dialogue to see where this takes us.

We are in very early days right yet, Mr. Speaker. We

want to be respectful of people coming to terms. There is no doubt that this is

having an impact and bringing back lots of trauma for people, but we are

certainly committed as a government to working with provinces, territories and

the federal government as we move forward on direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing was noticeably absent from the budget: rate

mitigation. The budget is promoting switching to hydro to heat homes, but what

is the point if people can't afford to pay their bill.

I ask the Premier: Where is the plan? The clock is

ticking and it is about to strike midnight.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned previously in this sitting, the work of

rate mitigation is ongoing between Mr. Paddick and Mr. Dupont. We hope to

provide updates as they occur. My understanding is they are progressing nicely.

This is indeed an issue that faces all of us. I didn't

create it but this government will fix it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The budget plans to spend a significant amount more

money in oil and gas activities than other industries like mining, the fishery,

agriculture, tourism and forestry.

If we truly intend to diversify our economy, I ask the

minister: Where is the investment in our future? Where is the plan?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question from the Member.

I think we'll have to differ on our opinion because I

see significant investments in a number of areas that diversify our economy. In

fact, I look at one that should be interesting to the Member: we've put

increased money into our mining sector this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

have an increase of funding as it relates to technology. We're going to have an

increase of funding as it relates to investment and attraction. We have an

increase in funding as it relates to tourism. We have an increase in money as it

relates to small business.

I say to the Member Opposite that I look forward to the

budget debate so that you can see investments we are making in the future of

this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Nalcor has been shrouded in

secrecy for years. We also know that once OilCo was created, courtesy of the

Energy Corporation Act , OilCo was also

shrouded in that same secrecy.

I ask the minister: Once you have finished your work in

terms of the consolidation of Nalcor, Hydro, OilCo, whatever you're going to do,

whatever entity is left, will they fall under the ATIPPA legislation?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite,

but, again, it's still a little early to tell. Now, what I will say to the

Member is that as one of the Members of this House who has sat through the Bill

29 debate, who has sat through the Muskrat Falls debate and has sat through

multiple debates – and, again, right now, we're waiting on the new ATIPPA review

– what I can say is that once we get the work done, whatever comes out – and I

think we've shown that we want to see the best interests of the province

represented here as it relates to our energy management, as well as it relates

to our information access. What I can say is that I want to be able to stand

here in this House and defend what we do and I think that the Member opposite,

when it is done, will probably be in agreement that what we are doing is in the

best interest of the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

thank the minister for the answer.

Mr. Speaker, the last provincial election was riddled

with inconsistencies and numerous issues; people not being able to vote and so

on. We know we have a Committee that's going to be looking at new legislation,

but I ask the Premier: Will this government commit to an independent

investigation of everything that happened in the recent provincial general

election, have a report issued and present it to this House of Assembly so that

we can debate in the House and ensure that all those parties involved in said

election are held accountable?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member opposite for the question.

As he knows, as he pointed out, this was a priority of

the Premier when the election was over, to task me and the Department of Justice

and Public Safety with revising and updating the

Elections Act, 1991 , which 1991 is written in the title so it is

time now to get on with it and modernize it.

Again, as the Member opposite did note, we have had an

All-Party Committee that has been struck. In fact, the All-Party Committee has

already had its first meeting; we plan to have our second meeting, which I think

is scheduled for June 14. There's already been tremendous headway made into

modernizing the Elections Act and, as we do that, we will be talking to members

of the public, to talk to them and find out what issues they had in terms of

voting in the last election.

The legislation that we will deliver to the House will

enable all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to vote as easy as possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the

following motion: That the Member for Lake Melville be appointed Deputy Chair of

Committees.

SPEAKER:

Any

further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to present a petition concerning the previous

election in 2021.

The cornerstone of any democratic society is the right

of 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

appropriate checks and balances to ensure this principle is upheld, it must be

perceived as being conducted that way.

The recent NL provincial general election has brought

serious allegations, numerous concerns and inconsistencies to light, including a

potential breach of the Elections Act,

1991 . As a result, thousands of people were potentially denied their

democratic right to vote.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly to

call upon the government to work with the Opposition parties and the independent

Members to develop 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 confidence of our electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, I will bring several petitions in the

House of Assembly on that matter. I know the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety has struck a Committee. I just want to put it out for the record that

they asked the independents. The two independents went and agreed with one

Member, and the minister went off and selected someone separate. That is the

minister's prerogative, no doubt, but I felt slighted. I know my colleague, the

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – because we want to get to the answers. We

don't want to have a Committee – and I can see that the PC Party will hold Bruce

Chaulk and the government accountable, and the Premier accountable, if he had

any – I just say to the minister, if you're going to actually engage

independents, you should do it with the honour to respect their decisions,

because it's a reflection on you. This is no reflection on me if I'm not on the

Committee. I'm not going to stop talking about it, but it's a reflection on the

people of Humber - Bay of Islands when you make a decision like that, I say to

the minister.

Something noteworthy that I noticed in this is – and

it's the minister's decision; I said it before – there are three Members from

Labrador on the Committee. There's not one from the West Coast; not one Member

of this Committee. All the seniors on the West Coast, all the people who were

denied the opportunity on the West Coast, can't be on it.

I know there are a lot of concerns in the Premier's

district, and I know that there were a lot of concerns that the Liberal Party

was in contact with Bruce Chaulk, so I'm wondering why there's no one on the

West Coast –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the Member not to call someone by their name.

JOYCE:

Oh,

sorry, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Sorry about that, Mr.

Speaker.

That is a slight for the people on the West Coast.

The other thing that is very upsetting here: Here we

are going to go out now and we're going to say: Okay, put in your comments. Most

of the seniors that were denied the right didn't have a computer to file a

ballot. Now, you're going to ask them to file their concerns online. What a slap

in the face to the seniors on the West Coast who never had the opportunity to

vote.

I'll be bringing a petition in, back and forth, on a

regular basis.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your time has expired.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The background of this petition is as follows: At

present, there is no left-turning lane on the Trans-Canada Highway entering

Lakeside resort near Thorburn Lake on a straight stretch of a two-lane highway

with a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour.

Many users have complained of near misses entering the

park or living areas and are afraid that a tragic accident could occur at any

time due to traffic congestion in an area with limited views.

Campers are trying to make a left turn with families.

The lack of a left-turning lane is having a negative impact and is deterring

some users from staying at the resort or entering their cabins, and the owner of

the park is contemplating a closure of this facility.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to add a left-turning lane on the TCH as

a safety measure for park users entering the park, similar to those existing at

other parks throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now what the minister

is going to stand up and say: It's a private business and government has no

right interfering in this private business. Well, this private business has been

there for 50 years and this turning lane is long overdue.

The volume of traffic and campers that turn in there on

a regular basis, it's massive. There are over a hundred campsites, and when they

turn in, it's families. It's not one individual that's turning. I'm not saying

that one individual is less important than a family of five, but if an accident

happens, it's going to be tragic.

Three years ago, they put a similar lane just down the

road going into a camp area, literally 1.5 kilometres away. The government paid

for it.

My concern with this is that government now has a plan

in place where they're going to pave this

section of road this summer. This is

the best opportunity to do this work and they're not even considering it. This

isn't about a park; this isn't about anything other than the health and safety

of families that utilize this facility. It's been there for a very long time.

Government has an opportunity to fix this at a fraction of the price and they

should seize that opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason for this petition is the need for seniors'

accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is steadily

increasing. Long-time residents of the region are facing the possibility of

needing to leave the region, their homes, in order to afford to live or receive

adequate care. Additional housing options, including assisted living care

facilities, like those found throughout the rest of the province for seniors,

has become a requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is currently not

being met.

WHEREAS the seniors of our province are entitled to

peace and comfort in the homes where they have spent their entire lives

contributing to the growth and prosperity of this province; and

WHEREAS the means for the increasing number of senior

residents in Labrador West to happily age in place are currently not available

in the region;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call

upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in place and provide affordable housing

options for seniors and assisted living care facilities for those who require

it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm presenting a petition with over 416

signatures, and I'll be presenting more of these from my region as my region is

becoming a larger senior population. In the past, Labrador West had the youngest

population. Now we have the fastest aging population in the region, as more

(inaudible) people who have lived in Lab West.

I'm the third generation to live in Labrador West since

my grandfather went up there in 1959; more and more people want to stay. My

family, my parents are staying in Labrador West because they want to be around

my children, their grandchildren, and this is happening more and more. We're

having more people retiring from the mining industry and other industries and

staying in Labrador West. Traditionally, residents of Labrador West would go

back to their community where they came from, but now the community they came

from is Labrador West.

We have a significant need for senior care. We do have

some long-term care beds, but that's for Level IV care. A majority of the people

in Lab West right now are looking at II and III at most. Those kinds of care are

not available. Home care is almost non-existent in Labrador West right now.

We're in between a rock and a hard place right now for our seniors who actually

need some supports.

They're living in very large houses, three- or

four-bedroom houses. There's maybe a widow or maybe an older couple and they

can't afford to maintain that large house between the two of them. There are no

options for them to downsize or move into a mini-retirement community where it's

a one- or two-bedroom little unit that's more equated to the size and

requirements they need. Then, to retrofit these large older houses to meet the

needs of seniors, even that is a costly burden or is non-existent because of the

construction of the home.

We're putting our seniors in Labrador West in a really

hard place. Where they have to make the decision: Do I stay in Labrador West or

do I leave my entire family behind, go to a community that I don't know to live

out their remaining years. The years that you're supposed to be retired and

enjoying retirement, they're going to live in a community that's alien to them.

This is where we are putting seniors right now. We

don't have the care that they deserve and that's the problem right now in

Labrador West. They don't have the care or the things that they deserve. After

all the years of hard work in building a community in Labrador West, they don't

have it.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your time has expired.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows: Route 10

from Trepassey to Peter's River is a part of the scenic Irish Loop drive, a

destination for many tourists, foreign and local.

WHEREAS many of the tourists travel to visit the

various attractions along the parts of the Irish Loop. Visitors come to see both

the old and the new tourist attractions in recent years, therefore, increasing

traffic volumes along this

section of highway;

We, the undersigned, urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant piece of road

infrastructure, including asphalt, sight lines and shoulders, so many tourists

will be more inclined to visit this area and residents will be provided a safer

commute during day and night.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of going up again this

year to a cleanup in St. Shott's. When I left St. Shott's I drove over to

Peter's River. When I go to the community, all I hear is the conditions of the

roads, really, from Trepassey right to Peter's River. Now, if they're coming

from St. John's and going out Salmonier Line, they're going to go over the

district that has just been paved. They forgot this

section of road with the

tourists. So if they're going to go over, stop and go back, well, they're fine.

If they keep going around the Irish Loop it's called,

not half the Irish Loop, they'll meet a condition that the roads – well, I've

had people tell me that he left to go to St. John's. He always has a pump and a

jack in his car for people with flats. He offered to help somebody last year;

they had three flats. They're never going to recommend anyone to go around the

Irish Loop. People with campers say the same thing. I would say they spent more

on the asphalt there to fill the potholes than they would to pave that road.

There's not much, whatever they call it, in the holes.

I can't think of the word for it.

HON. MEMBER:

Cold patch.

O'DRISCOLL:

Cold patch.

If you go up there and you're driving around – you're

on the left side of the road going up there. When I'm going up, I'm on the left

side of the road trying to get around the potholes to go up there. It's

embarrassing.

For people as tourists to go up there, local and coming

from away, to be driving this road it's incredible. With all the tourist

attractions you have – you have the Trepassey motel there for people, the B & Bs

and houses and stuff like that. You have Mistaken Point; you have the Colony of

Avalon around the way. In another month or so, you're going to have the people

up there visiting whales. In the last three or four years, just driving along

St. Vincent's and going to that area – which you go through Peter's River going

up the Southern Shore Highway – it's a detriment to be going that road during

the day and worse in the nighttime when you can't see the holes and bang, you're

in a hole and the tire is gone.

I would love for the government to be able to give us a

plan, to see what their plan is to be able to fix that road and be able to bring

it up to some tourist attraction, not a tourist distraction to go up there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My petition today: Labrador has a rate of sexual

assault of nearly four times the national average, according to the RCMP and the

RNC. While this region only makes up 5 per cent of the province's total

population, Labrador has 25 per cent of the police-reported sexual assaults.

In 2020, Statistics Canada reported that there were 449

police-reported sexual assaults on average for every 100,000 people in Canada,

while Labrador had about 681. Many of the sexual assault survivors are Innu or

Inuit living in communities where support services are lacking. It is crucial

that the victims of sexual assault receive proper care as to not be further

traumatized. It is also important for the people administering the care to be

culturally aware and to have the proper education in these matters. The nearest

professionally trained support is based here in St. John's.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the government to establish a sexual assault nurse examiner in

Labrador that can support survivors and provide awareness education regarding

these terrible crimes.

Mr. Speaker, this matter was actually raised by my

colleague from the NDP this morning and I thanked him for that. At that time, it

was suggested that perhaps it is the Department of Health and Community

Services; we were in Justice and Public Safety Estimates. I'm hoping that we can

get some clarification on a particular line item in the budget.

I did want to add a couple other comments, if I could,

just around the statistics. It is important for this House of Assembly and

people watching to understand that some 83 per cent of sexual assaults are not

reported to the police. What we are dealing with are probably – and,

unfortunately, this crime that we are speaking about is the least likely to be

reported to the police. Adverse health effects for survivors, including PTSD,

anxiety disorders, substance use and depressive disorders are just some of the

effects that these victims are dealing with.

Sexual assault nurse examiner programs are known to

have, however, a very positive effect on survivors, while being sent to an

emergency room or to the police certainly has the opposite effect. These

programs have been shown to make survivors confident to seek justice. The

specialists are properly trained in collecting evidence with specialized

techniques and trained in crisis intervention, ensuring emotional and medical

care.

In Budget 2021 ,

released yesterday, there was a line item of some $425,000 allocated for the

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program and further initiatives. I would ask this

House of Assembly, and particularly the Minister of Health and Community

Services, does that also indicate that we may have a professional position in

Labrador, where it's most needed?

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly echo the concern just said here by my

colleague today. But I am happy to say that the Office of Women and Gender

Equality allocated $225,000 for the expansion of the Sexual Assault Nurse

Examiner Program last year, and the same amount has been allocated again this

year.

I'm also happy to say, on behalf of my colleague, the

Department of Health and Community Services certainly is working with the

regional health authorities to expand the same program into areas covered by

Labrador-Grenfell and Central Health.

As we get more updates, of course, more information

will be forthcoming, but I just want to confirm and certainly concur with the

hon. Member that it certainly is a very important issue, one that can no longer

be ignored, and there's a lot of work to do. We certainly are committed to doing

that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 11.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety, that under the authority of Standing Order 65, that the Member for

Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,

the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Harbour Main and the Member

for St. John's Centre shall comprise a Committee, and in accordance with the

Standing Orders shall report, within

the first 20 days of appointment, lists of Members to compose the Standing

Committees of the House referred to in Standing Order 65(1).

SPEAKER:

The

motion is that we pass Motion 11, striking the Committees.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 12.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

that the Public Accounts Committee comprise the following Members: the Member

for Placentia - St. Mary's, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member

for St. George's - Humber, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for

Labrador West.

That the Privileges and Elections Committee comprise

the following Members: the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, the

Member for Burin - Grand Bank, the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows,

the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and the Member for St. John's

Centre.

That the Standing Orders Committee comprise the

following Members: the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member

for Mount Scio, the Member for Windsor Lake, the Member for Harbour Main and the

Member for Labrador West.

That the Miscellaneous and Private Bills Committee

comprise the following Members: the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, the

Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the

Member for Topsail - Paradise and the Member for St. John's Centre.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 13.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that notwithstanding

Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on

Wednesday, June 2, 2021, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for

Routine Proceedings and to conduct government business and that at 5 p.m. the

Speaker shall adjourn the House.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

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

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to have a few words on that motion.

It's just a pattern, Mr. Speaker, that you see, when

the government wants to consult and doesn't go along, usually for a sham of

consulting. Here we are again today taking these

Standing Orders , and because the government just doesn't want to

extend the time in this House, and just asking to change the

Standing Orders because they want it

changed.

The Standing

Orders are put in place by a Committee. The

Standing Orders are edged in this House of Assembly so that we all

know what will be called on what day. Here we are again, the government, with

their slim majority just asking to change the

Standing Orders to fit what they want on their agenda. What the

Routine Proceedings would be, can be carried out on another day; it could be

carried on extension. It would be about the budget, it could be carried on. The

Premier, as we all know, don't like it in the House of Assembly so let's get

this over and the government with their slim majority, let's just hobnob, push

everything through, let's change the

Standing Orders.

There's a Standing Orders Committee in this House of

Assembly that right now we're even sidestepping that Committee so that the

government can try to push through their agenda without following the proper

process in this House.

I said it before when I was in the Opposition, when we

start allowing the government to just ram everything through, that's when

democracy is starting to fail; that's when democracy will fail. I can assure you

now, you can see the slippery slope that we're gradually going down now, that on

two or three different occasions the government went and asked for the advice of

– I'll just use the independents and go completely against it, but go public and

say, well, we consulted. Consultation was more or less just to say that they did

it and not follow through on it.

I remember the last time we changed the

Standing Orders , Mr. Speaker, it was

when there was no debate on closure. I know the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands was with me and we had great discussions with the Premier and a

certain minister and then the next thing you know we're going to be brought into

it, we're going to be part of the group. The next thing you know we walked into

the House of Assembly, a week later, boom here it is. We were sitting down with

those people a week before talking about collaboration; nothing is going to

happen unless we sit down and have discussions. The Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands can remember that meeting.

This is the slippery slope we're going down, folks.

I've been around long enough and I've seen it before. If anybody in this House

wants to look at it, look at Bill 29 that we had to stand up – look at Muskrat

Falls, we should all have – not everybody, I'm not pointing fingers here, but

everybody should ask more questions.

The minute we just allow things to just take it and

push it through, just for the government agenda, we are not doing our duties as

MHAs – we are not. Because what's next? We're going to take it and just push it

on through this House of Assembly. Once we allow the

Standing Orders just to be changed because of a motion in this

House, because they have a majority, it's shameful on behalf of the government

just to do that, just to walk in, instead of having consultations to say here's

the reason why.

People might say: Well, it's only three hours on a

Wednesday. It might be only two hours, actually, 3 to 5. But it's not the two

hours, it's the precedent that we're setting. Once we start allowing this to

happen because the government has the majority and we don't follow the proper

procedures about the Standing Orders Committees in this House of Assembly, I can

assure you there are going to be a lot of changes done and there are going to be

a lot more issues.

By the time we allow this to continue, we will not be

able to stop that slippery slope. I've seen the slippery slope happen before,

and once you go down that slippery slope you're going to give credence to all of

these changes, you're going to allow this to happen without any debate and

you're going to allow this to happen because they have a majority, the Liberals

have a majority right now.

I guarantee you – remember I said it – there are a lot

of things I've said in this House before that came true, this is going to be

another one. If the government are just allowed to walk in and change any

Standing Order they like, democracy is not being served properly. Democracy is

not being served.

As we noticed in the motion that was made, there's no

rationale for it. Absolutely no rationale. If we had some very serious issue

that we say we would like to put it in for this time slot, I'm sure everybody

would say: We all agree. Everybody would say: We all agree. But just to walk in,

click the fingers, we want to change because we want to get out of the House of

Assembly probably two or three days earlier in June, it's wrong – it's wrong. If

you notice when the Government House Leader brought it in there was no

explanation. Just hope it's going to pass on through.

I'm not going to speak any longer on it, Mr. Speaker,

but I warn all Members and I warn the government also, that just because you

have a slim majority, the House of Assembly is for all of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador – all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; not

just the ones who happen to be on the Liberal side, but for all people. Once you

deny the rights of individuals, Members in this House, and be able to change as

you see fit, you're denying the rights of all of the people that we represent in

this province, who, at times, may have issues to bring up and may not be able to

because they're trying to close the House quicker already.

I'll end on that, Mr. Speaker, and I caution the House:

To allow this on a regular basis, and even this time, to allow this to happen

without going through the Standing Orders Committee, without having a proper

change and just doing it because it's the whim of the government to get – as the

Premier stated, he doesn't like being in this House – this House closed, at the

end of it. It's shameful for this House to do that, to be able to just click

your fingers and change things.

The people that we represent, if we're in here for a

certain amount of time, we should represent them to the best of our ability. The

minute that we give up the opportunity for any of us in Opposition to speak –

and the government is going to deny that opportunity – I think democracy is not

being served well.

I'll close on that statement. I just wanted to have

that on the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't planning on speaking to this, but my colleague

has and he raises a very good point.

I've always said, since I've been an independent

Member, as everybody knows, regardless of what the bill is, regardless of what

the issue is, I always want to make sure that I record where I stand on each and

every issue. It's there and it's in

Hansard , the good and the bad. We all know about

Hansard : There's stuff that can come

back and haunt you. I can look back in 2011, I'm sure, at stuff I said I'm

probably not too proud of today and can come back and haunt me. I've tried to do

better, Mr. Speaker – tried to do better.

I do want to just say, and concur with my colleague

here, that it's more about the principle. It's about the principle. If you can

change this Standing Order today, what's to say that tomorrow we're not going to

change something else? What's to say the every day the government can simply

come in and basically scrap the Standing

Orders and do whatever they feel like on any given day or any given time

period to suit their agenda, whatever it is.

As the Member said, had the Government House Leader

approached the parties and approached the independents and said, listen, we need

to make this exception for today only and this is the reason why we're doing it,

and if it was a legitimate reason or something like that, I'm sure we would try

to co-operate and do it for a good reason.

To simply come in, just make these motions against the

Standing Orders and just to do it on a

whim with no explanation whatsoever, no logic – they may have a reason, but they

haven't shared it with us. To simply do it because you can, I think is wrong.

As my colleague said, it's also wrong in the sense

that, as he referenced that time – I don't know if it was the last sitting or

the sitting before – when, as independents, we were left out of the discussion

about what the plans were going to be for the week, and shutting down the House

early and everything. They expected us to just simply go along with it and have

no input, not be able to speak at all. Of course, we followed the rules at the

time and we utilized the motion to shut down the House as an opportunity to

speak about why we shouldn't be shutting down the House. What happened? As a

result of that, next week the government comes in and changes the rules that we

can't do that again. Trying to shut us down is what it comes down to; trying to

shut us down.

I'll say to every Member in this House, particularly

the government: There's nobody shutting me down, I can tell you that. I will

find a way to have my voice heard and I won't be shut down. The only agenda I'm

interested in is the agenda of the people of Mount Pearl - Southlands who

elected me. That's the agenda.

I'll conclude with that, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to,

for the record, agree with my colleague that we are on a slippery slope. It is

dangerous if we just start simply changing the rules of the game midway through

a game for some unknown reason without any concurrence, without any input from

other Members of the House.

For that reason – it's not going to matter, the

government has their majority anyway, but I will not be voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had no intentions, and I'm not going to speak very

long, I don't normally – I suppose not agree, but the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands and I don't always agree on everything, of course, but I'm fair person,

too. When you make valid points – and I believe that everyone's voice and 40

Members in this House make a valid point – there's nothing wrong with standing

up and being accountable. A lot more should do it. I agree with what he's

saying. I do agree with what he's saying.

I'm not discouraged or disappointed that we don't have

to hear a government PMR tomorrow. That doesn't bother me at all. That doesn't

disappoint me one bit, because that's a lot to tolerate for an afternoon. Any

Wednesday from 2 to 5, that's pretty painful, so I thank the government opposite

for showing us that mercy.

If you're going to have

Standing Orders – and I guess I'll revisit earlier in the month when

I spoke about the MCRC. Why do we have rules? Why do we make these rules? Why

are we bringing these Committees together? We're bringing in rules and we're not

respecting them. We're not respecting our Legislature.

I've been here long enough now that I can speak pretty

comfortably on it. There are certain Orders: You can't say a Member is not in

the House and you can't use their name. I can go on, a long list of these little

etiquette things we follow. They're under

Standing Orders . We do petitions here, but some ministers opposite

have gotten into if they want to respond. They get a chance to respond; some,

not all, have decided they just don't respond to petitions.

Why are we changing these rules when they're not being

followed, they're not being respected. We have a job to do in here. The

government has the majority and we sense that every day since the election.

However they got it, they got it and we feel it across the way because there's a

different tone. They're in power now, that's fine. They have the majority and we

can't do anything about that. But they haven't got a majority over respect and

respect for the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. No one has autonomy on that.

Go across the country, check what other provinces do.

I'm hazarding to guess this is not a regular occurrence in most other

legislatures. You change it on a whim, you change it at will, you change it when

it suits you; you change the schedule, you change – these all stay

Standing Orders .

What the independent Members are bringing up, they're

making a very valid point. Again, I will say, I thank the Government House

Leader for sparing us our PMR.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

PETTEN:

We're very happy that he's willing to spare us that, but I think that it's time

for government to start respecting these

Standing Orders . Let's bring the Legislature back to what it's supposed to

be; show some respect.

When we're in our rooms and we're preparing for

sittings every day and we're looking down, we take the

Standing Orders . We have these books, the

Standing Orders states this, the

Standing Orders states that. We try to follow those rules because

they are rules and we believe in them.

The government just comes in at will and arbitrarily

decides: No, we're not going to follow them. We won't do this because whatever

whim, whatever reason, whether it's the Premier don't want to be here or they

don't want to deal with a PMR; whether they want to move on to something true.

Again, I can't read their minds, but show some respect for the Legislature; have

some respect.

I make one point, the final point, which kind of bugs

me a bit, is this response to petitions. That's in our

Standing Orders . We changed the

Standing Orders to permit that, but

now I find ministers over across the way are almost laughing at Members when

they're presenting their petitions.

There is one thing I want to be on record as telling

ministers that do that, any Member in this House, especially on this side that

presents a petition, they're not presenting it for themselves, they're

presenting it for the people in their districts, the people of this province,

the people they represent; the people we all represent.

A very important point they need to remember, Mr.

Speaker, it's not a slight against the Member in this seat, it's a slight

against the people they represent. My opinion on this, in this final note, is

respect the Legislature, respect the rules, respect the

Standing Orders and that will make this Legislature much better

because, right now, I do not feel that's what's happening.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very important to speak on this particular

matter. I'm going to add a few additional comments, but I do want to echo my

colleagues from the independent world of this House of Assembly who are making

really good points, and the Member for Conception Bay South.

Certainly, here again, we are seeing a little bit of a

pattern: no consultation and no explanation as to the plan. This is a very

co-operative House and I think we all understand our roles; we all understand

how we can contribute. We're legislators, we work with laws and we are here to

do that in respect of each of our districts. Again, things are dropped on us and

the Opposition. I consider myself – I'm not a part of government, sometimes I'm

not a part of Opposition, I sit here as an independent MHA and I will go where

it's best for my district and where it's best for Labrador and this province,

and I will continue to do that.

I think it's also important for us to realize that the

Standing Orders , as my colleague just

indicated, are a reflection of all of those previous Assemblies before us. Here

we are at the 50th in the history of government in this land and, yeah, for the

sake of whatever agenda the Government House Leader and government has, we're

going to forego Wednesday and the normal activities, which is private Members'

resolution. I want to speak to this point.

It's interesting, last year and the year before, I had

plenty of opportunity to lead several PMRs and there's a bit of an attitude, I

think, that PMRs are a throwaway day. Well, I'm just going to remind this House

of Assembly and anybody watching about just some of the PMRs that I've been a

part of and seen, and then see how they even manifested themselves into the

budget released yesterday by the Minister of Finance. These are not throwaway

days. I'll just give you a few examples of some of the ones that I'm very

familiar with.

One that's very near and dear to my heart we spoke

about was – I believe it was last year; the days are starting to flow together –

the will of this House of Assembly, of this government, of this province to get

to net zero by 2050 – a very important topic. As we often say when we make

decisions, we need to think seven generations out. It's that kind of foresight,

that kind of thinking and the kinds of contribution that we had on that day that

will formulate so much of how we're going to behave and act. You heard it

yourself in the statement yesterday by the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change on moves around that move. How do we get to net zero?

Another very important one, and I've yet to hear the

details on, but I heard there were monies identified yesterday around vaping.

You might remember a very important PMR around how do we keep vaping out of the

youth of our province?

SPEAKER:

remind the Member to stay relevant to the debate.

TRIMPER:

Oh,

I'm very relevant. I'm talking about the importance of the PMR, which is being

circumvented by a motion by the Government House Leader.

Again, a very important topic, it manifested itself in

the budget yesterday, I'm hoping it generates itself into some action by the

legislation, but, again, wait to be seen. But, again, it underlines the

importance of what we are planning to do tomorrow and as before us now decided

that it's not that important.

Another was electrical vehicle adoption and the

importance of EV chargers and so on. We are saying this every day, more and more

and we saw this government responding to that. Another one we talked about was

achieving an aspiration that was in The

Way Forward about doubling food production. This entire House, everybody

with an agricultural background, everybody with an interest in getting from 10

to 20 per cent, we all contributed and it made for a better place.

Another one you might remember, where we did change the

orders because of the importance of the PMRs that we are deciding here to

perhaps forgo tomorrow, was around our war veterans. That was the first time, I

think, in the history of this Assembly, of this House where we actually, with

complete consensus in this House, we agreed to go beyond 5 o'clock because of

the importance of the PMR. We all needed to speak to what sacrifices had been

made in the past and what it meant to us. We are just going to throw that away

for whatever reason, I have yet to hear.

Perhaps the most relevant one that every single one of

the MHAs in this room can talk about is the all-party mental health Committee

that was struck by an NDP motion. It was before I became a Member of this

honoured House, but it has grabbed us. It has been so powerful, all parties have

come together and are going to continue to come together because of activity on

a PMR on a Wednesday.

I don't know what to say, Mr. Speaker, but I must say

that I'm not in favour of it and I don't see myself supporting it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank everybody for their contribution. Just so that

everybody is clear here, this was a government PMR tomorrow. It was our decision

to forgo the PMR to continue the budget discussion. This is a very important

week. The Finance Minister – I was going to say stood for a little over an hour

yesterday to deliver a budget. The Opposition critic will have his turn this

afternoon for, I'm hearing, three-plus hours, which is good, Mr. Speaker. It is

a part of the debate we wanted to continue.

The budget is the most important piece of legislation

that this Legislature will entertain every year and we wanted to continue that

debate tomorrow morning and into tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Speaker, that's why we

made these changes.

I heard references above about consultation. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there's not a Member over there that hasn't got my phone number and I

just searched it and nobody called me to ask what the agenda for this House was

this week. I spoke to the Opposition House Leader yesterday afternoon and I told

him quite clearly, right over here, what we were going to do today with our PMR.

He asked me what the plan was, I told him what the plan for the week was.

Next week, it's the Opposition's PMR and I'm sure that

they'll go ahead with their PMR next week, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, I thank everybody for their contribution.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

All

those against, 'nay.'

SPEAKER:

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, first reading of Bill 19.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Vital

Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2, Bill 19, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave

to introduce Bill 19,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2, and

that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and

Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009

No. 2,” carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2. (Bill 19)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 16, and I further move

that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill

16,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, and that the said bill should now be

read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and

Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” carried.

(Bill 16)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 16)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2,

Bill 15, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill

15,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2 and that the said bill shall

now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000

No. 2,” carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a first time.

When shall it be read a second time?

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act, Bill 18, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act, Bill 18, and that the said

bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act,”

carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act. (Bill 18)

SPEAKER:

The

said bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to start off the budget response from the

Official Opposition in an unusual way by reading into the record the names of

the communities in my District of Stephenville - Port au Port. I know each and

every one of these communities and the thousands of people who live there.

Before I do that, I want to address the issue of the

recent COVID outbreak in my district. I know it's a very stressful time for so

many people in our area right now. I want to wish all of those who have

contracted COVID a speedy recovery, and those in isolation I hope you continue

to be symptom-free.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

There are currently hundreds of children, families and education staff in

isolation in the immediate area. Many families are already stating that they

will not be sending their children to school in an effort to stop the spread of

the outbreak and in keeping with the Public Health recommendations, which

includes: stay home as much as possible, work from home where possible, stay

within your household bubble as much as possible and wear a mask within a public

indoor setting even when seated.

Gatherings are limited to only those in your bubble.

Gyms, pools, fitness centres, group sports, arts and recreation activities are

all closed. Restaurants are takeout only and retail stores are at 50 per cent

capacity.

Parents, families and community members take these

recommendations very seriously. They want to do everything possible to stop the

spread of COVID in our communities. Given that the Newfoundland and Labrador

for times like this, we feel it would be in the best interests of the children

to be able to avail of these measures.

By not moving to online learning or providing the

option of online learning, the school district is creating an unfair educational

environment for our children. Children in isolation for 14 days and the children

who are being kept home to help stop the spread, will not have the same learning

opportunities as those in the school; something that the Newfoundland and

will also affect the children's school attendance.

I would ask the government and the minister who's now

ask the school board to reconsider this decision to keep the schools open.

Again, let's look after our neighbours and our friends and make sure that all

are safe.

Now, let me profile the communities in my district who

are made up of good people, hard-working people, people with big hopes and

dreams for their future and their families' future, people facing struggles and

challenges just like others throughout our province. People in the communities

such as Cape St. George, which includes De Grau, Red Brook, Marches Point,

Kippens, Lourdes, Port au Port East, Port au Port West-Aguathuna-Felix Cove,

Stephenville, Campbell's River, Fox Island River, Point au Mal, Boswarlos and

Cold Brook.

I think everybody here is familiar with Cold Brook. I

just want to make sure that the Minister of Transportation understands Cold

Brook is only a one-kilometre road that needs paving and to quote him, I think

it is $300,000 for one kilometre. So $300,000 and you could all drive out to

Cold Brook this summer and enjoy a nice, flat paved road without having to worry

about whether you're going to damage your car or not.

Noels Pond, another beautiful community, but you have

to drive out there when it's not raining, because there's a potential that the

bridge may be flooded over. Let's get that one looked at. Black Duck Brook,

Winterhouse, Mainland, Piccadilly Head, Piccadilly Slant-Abrahams Cove, Sheaves

Cove, Ship Cove, Lower Cove, Jerrys Nose, Three Rock Cove and West Bay.

Stephenville - Port au Port is one of the most

beautiful parts of our extraordinary, beautiful province, so that's saying

something. It is rich in potential: tourism potential, agricultural potential,

fishing potential and other natural resource potential. A strategic location, a

skilled population, with a strong work ethic and a determination to make our

region survive and thrive. The region is full of talented young students eager

to learn and rise to the full measure of their potential. It is full of parents

proud of their children with big dreams for a secure future, hopefully, close to

home. It is full of grandparents with families nearby or scattered here and

there, but as close as a phone call or an email away.

This planet we live on is full of places like this;

some of them thriving, some of them struggling to survive and some of them ghost

towns with abandoned homes, like tombstones to mark what used to be. The choices

that decide whether a particular region will live or die are often made by

people far from those communities and may be people who have never set foot in

that community and have no real idea of what it's like there, who lives there or

what the true potential is.

Choices are made by so-called economic gurus,

bureaucrats and important people sitting around fancy tables and tall buildings

in big cities far from the people whose lives hang on the choices they make. In

some jurisdictions, the choices that get made are sound choices based on bold

thinking informed by a deep understanding of emerging opportunities and how to

seize them, and motivated by a great faith in the potential of the people in the

region to grow and lead, economically.

In other jurisdictions, the choices and the people

making them are anything but bold and imaginative, anything but informed and

aspirational. In other jurisdictions, towns die because the people whose job it

is to help them reach their true potential are just not up to the task. Sadly,

when that happens, it's not the people around the table who suffer; they have

their salaries, their pensions and their secure futures to fall back on after

their time around the table is done. The ones who suffer are the ordinary,

hard-working folk of places like Cape St. George, Kippens, Lourdes, Port au Port

East, Port au Port West-Aguathuna-Felix Cove, Stephenville, Campbells Creek, Fox

Island River-Point au Mal, Boswarlos, Cold Brook, Noels Pond, Black Duck

Brook-Winterhouse, Mainland, Piccadilly Head, Piccadilly Slant-Abrahams Cove,

Sheaves Cove, Ship Cove-Lower Cove-Jerry's Nose, Three Rock Cove and West Bay.

Newfoundland and Labrador endured a great resettlement

once before. It was a policy fashioned by economic gurus around fancy tables and

buildings in cities who quite likely never set foot in the communities whose

houses were floated across the bays. Some believe it was a good policy to move

those people closer to major services, so those services did not have to be

disbursed at a great cost to the Treasury.

We're having those same conversations once again, just

a few decades later, for the very same reasons. Do you know what's really sad?

You only need to cast your glaze to places like Norway and Iceland, Denmark and

Ireland and even the islands of Japan, to find places where geographical

challenges similar to ours and they have found ways to make their economy work.

In fact, we have resources that make us the envy of jurisdictions that are doing

much better than us. Oh, what they would do if they had the strengths to draw on

what we have. So why is it that other jurisdictions can make things work and

drive growth in their regions while this province harvests its lumber to

literally board up homes and shops?

Do we actually realize what wealth we possess in this

province? We hear the lists rhymed off in virtually every Budget Speech and

economic statement. The energy resources, the fishery resources, the forestry

resources, the mining resources, the tourism resources, the hydro resources, the

oil resources and the strategic location to boot, but what are we really doing

to drive job growth and economic expansion on the strength of these

opportunities?

We are in the heat of a global, digital age when tech

companies are booming and some of the brightest and most ambitious digital

growth leaders in the world are based right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's a roaring industry that can sink down roots virtually anywhere and thrive;

yet, the McKinsey and Mills reports told us that Newfoundland and Labrador is

not graduating enough computer science professionals to fill the digital jobs we

already have, let alone to grow this industry to its full potential. How did

this happen? How are we going to fix it?

Who's going to dust off the specific economic growth

opportunities identified in vivid detail in the McKinsey report that could bring

prosperity and a new lease on life to places like Stephenville - Port au Port?

Aviation, aerospace, aviation mechanics, aquaculture, energy, international

education, agriculture, ocean technology, all industries that McKinsey said are

capable of generating jobs and growth in Newfoundland and Labrador communities.

We need the government to take the lead to drive this potential.

Where is the evidence of what's happened to the report?

The Education Minister, of course, knows full well. He commissioned that report

when he was Finance Minister. I'm not sure if he was able to persuade his

Cabinet colleagues to drive the implementation of those recommendations.

The new Finance Minister is the one who drove the

creation of the Oil and Gas Corporation, which Dame Moya now seems to want to

dismantle. Where is the consistency? Where is the strategic planning? Who is

looking five, 10, 20 years out to where we need to be and settling on an action

plan to get us there? Does Newfoundland and Labrador face challenges? Absolutely

we do.

One of them is the COVID pandemic that every region of

the world is facing. Thank heavens for the good sense of our people to do what

was needed to keep one another safe. Thank heavens for the health care workers,

the service and retail workers, the truckers, the clerks, the cleaners and

others who laboured extra hard to get us through the worst of this. They did

such an amazing job that Newfoundland and Labrador has weathered this challenge

better than almost anyone, at least in terms of the health impact on our people.

We did not weather the economic impact very well.

Tourism business and other small businesses have been decimated by the impact

and some are not going to make it without help. I am glad to see the budget

provide support through a Tourism and Hospitality Support Program to alleviate

pressures experienced by COVID-19 and funding for assistance to small business

and community organizations to help with increased costs and losses as a result

of the pandemic.

COVID gets blamed for a lot of things that COVID didn't

cause, such as our fiscal predicament; it only exposed the weaknesses that were

already there. Another challenge is global oil prices, they slumped at the worst

possible time for us because we were counting on our oil returns to cover hydro

costs and then the oil process bottomed out. At one point, oil was technically

worth less than zero because some sellers had to pay people to take their oil.

That was another challenge that could have been faced with wisdom and strategic

thinking.

Norway figured this out and incentivised exploration.

When the global exploration pie was shrinking, Norway's incentives ensured they

retained a monstrous slice of that shrinking pie. As a result, they have been

able to weather the storm of decreased oil prices. Canada, on the other hand,

did not have the benefit of the kind of astute leadership that Norway had. Our

leaders ignored the pleas for incentives and the major growth sector of the

countries poorest province was left with nothing.

At the time when exploration incentives could have

lifted our province to sustainable growth on the strength of our own resources,

Ottawa did nothing and the Liberal government of this province unfortunately let

them. Let me quote directly from the Premier's Greene report: “The province has

to move quickly to restart the oil and gas industry…. The current system is slow

and unresponsive due to the uncertainty of the regulatory framework and local

benefit requirements. The province's approach to oil and gas development has

resulted in a loss of value and revenue.” This is one of the greatest failures

of the Liberal government, both provincially and federally.

What was another challenge we faced? The cost overruns

of Muskrat Falls. Before the Members opposite say Muskrat Falls was a colossally

stupid idea, remember three things: the provincial Liberals actually supported

Muskrat Falls development, as did the NDP; the federal Liberals also supported

Muskrat Falls development, as did the federal Conservatives; and even Moya

Greene supports Muskrat Falls and Gull Island development as a means of lifting

our province to self-sufficiency.

Was the project mismanaged? Of course it was. The

LeBlanc commission showed all of us what went wrong and how to avoid such a

calamity next time. But our predicament is not solely due to that mismanagement,

it's due to the fact that our partner in this national green energy project, the

project affordable.

They cannot expect our people and ours alone to bear

the burden of these extra costs, not when Ottawa facilitated the go-ahead of

Muskrat Falls as a national energy initiative. They need to take an equity stake

to make this project feasible and successful. This equity stake should not be

dependent on the Atlantic Loop or on any future deals on hydro development; it

needs to be dealt with now. Once we get rate mitigation out of the way, then we

can talk about what we should do next.

There will be no more giveaways. We cannot be held

ransom by the federal government or the Province of Quebec. Yet we've heard

another budget and still there is no decision on rate mitigation while the

people of the province wait to see what their power rates will be.

What's our fourth challenge we face? It's the gross

unfairness of the federal transfer programs. In a federation of equals, where

transfers are built into the fundamental document of the land, the Constitution,

Ottawa is obligated to treat us fairly. They have reneged on their obligation to

our detriment, and the Members opposite have unfortunately left them off the

hook.

If we had benefited from transfer reform, like the

Liberals promised in 2015, we would not be in the fiscal predicament we're in.

We would not have registered the deficits or debt borrowing we've seen. We would

not have been nearly unable to make payroll. We would not have our backs up

against the wall with threats of cuts and further tax hikes looming over our

collective heads. Simply put, if the Trudeau Liberals had treated Newfoundland

and Labrador fairly, as they promised and they were bound to do, we would be in

an entirely different situation today. Liberal choices have caused the crisis

we're in. That's the stark reality.

Once again, let me quote the Premier's Greene report:

“There are challenges with the equalization system. The current formula used to

calculate payments places Newfoundland and Labrador at a disadvantage compared

to other provinces, largely owing to the treatment of natural resource revenue.

These revenue streams are temporary and are in part owned by future generations.

Other issues include the disproportionate weight given to larger provinces,

namely Ontario and Québec, in establishing payment caps as well as a lack of

sensitivity to changing circumstances, such as aging populations and the cost of

service provision. The equalization formula will have to be revisited.” That's

directly from the Greene report.

She goes on to recommend that “The Provincial

Government should continue to explore with the Federal Government and other

provinces: The potential of establishing a new institutional federal loan

facility that would replace the Bank of Canada's Provincial Bond Purchase

Program, to enable provincial governments to borrow 10- and 30-year bonds at

federal borrowing rates; Amending the Equalization program to remove revenues

from non-renewable resources from the fiscal capacity cap; Changing the per

capita approach to the Fiscal Stabilization Program, modifying the threshold for

declines in non-resource revenues and revising how resource revenues are

treated; and Modifying the Canada Health Transfer such that it provides a higher

percentage of provincial and territorial health care expenditures.”

If you sell off or strangle the goose that lays the

golden eggs, don't get up in the morning wondering why there are no more golden

eggs being laid. If you want golden eggs, take good care of the goose that lays

them. The golden eggs this province needs so desperately are jobs and local

successes that sustain growth and spinoffs for generations to come.

When the Premier hired Dame Moya, he actually wrote

into her terms of reference a requirement that she also recommend some

opportunities to grow. Her report sprinkled in a few motherhood statements about

growing the green economy and looking at hydrogen, but there was little of real

substance to balance against what appeared to be the true agenda, which was to

cut public services, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and peddle

our assets on the street.

We, on this side of the House, have an entirely

different vision. Where you are prepared to sell not just the furniture but also

the walls of the house to pay the mortgage, we see these assets as tools to

generate income. Not income through higher taxes but income through real growth,

new investment dollars and commercial revenue streams. We need to be generating

products and services that people can buy, and adding value so we can earn more

profits per unit of labour.

Is this feasible to Newfoundland and Labrador? Of

course, it is. Those who do not see the potential on how to capitalize on it

should remove themselves from the decision-making process so that people with

this kind of expertise and mindset can do what they do best. Finding ways to

grow must be job one. We cannot cut or tax our way to growth. It just doesn't

work. You must cultivate and nourish your way to growth.

There are entrepreneurs all over this province who have

generated wealth benefiting not only themselves, but also their communities,

through ingenuity and tenacity and the right kind of networking. We need these

kinds of people in positions of leadership and influence in our province to

drive real growth and bring the jobs and revenues here.

The McKinsey report was written by experts that

identified opportunities with real world applications and bankable

opportunities, the ones we ought to pay attention to. The business world is a

lot like the TV shows the Dragons' Den

and Shark Tank , where people with

money and business acumen judge the entrepreneurs pitching ideas and look hard

at the credibility and bankability of those making the pitches.

We really can't afford to be amateurs at this. We need

people who know what they're doing and command respect from investors and

builders. What they respect most is not buzzwords or political spin, but

hard-nosed facts and solid plans where all the numbers add up and make sense.

There's an enormous amount of capital circulating

around the world and we need to capture only a small slight of that, piece of

that, to be sustainable. There are single cities that have economies larger than

ours and populations larger than our countries, but that doesn't mean we're

barely a blip on their radar. They start paying attention when they realize the

wealth that's buried here. When they found out about the nickel, copper and

cobalt of Voisey's Bay, they started paying attention. They already knew about

the iron of Western Labrador and they're now noticing the rare earth elements of

Eastern Labrador.

Others are noticing our ocean technology sector and the

incredible things we're doing there. Verafin turned heads with the work it is

doing in an entirely different field. None of these success would have happened

without very good people to drive the vision. How many more opportunities are

waiting for the right person to drive them?

What about international education, which McKinsey says

is a gold mine? Are we really living up to our potential in that field of

growth? What about the aviation mechanics, another McKinsey highlight that could

give a new lease on life to our airport towns in a world that is about to

rebound from COVID and take to the skies once again?

What about tourism? Are we doing the right things to

get noticed in the markets where people have plenty of cash to spend on travel

and are itching to get on the move again once the pandemic ends? Are we

supporting local enterprises so they are still here and ready to take visitors

once the world starts moving again?

How much farther and deeper can we drive ocean

technology by partnering far beyond our shores? Are we thinking globally enough?

Are we driving this sector ambitiously enough? Or are we letting places like

Halifax steal our thunder and reap the rewards?

How can we drive growth in our energy sector, instead

of remaining mired in the endless hand-wringing over Muskrat Falls? Why aren't

we doing more to explore the markets for clean energy that we could be

supplying?

The United States now has a Democratic administration

in office once again, and clean energy is something the Americans are hungry

for. Here we have one of the best hydro resources on the continent, so rich, in

fact, that Quebec pundits are openly talking about raiding their poor neighbour

in our time of woe. Quebec certainly sees the opportunities in our hydro. Do the

people around the Cabinet table upstairs sees the opportunities with the same

clarity and optimism?

The time for speculating about these things should be

over. We need to be moving on these right now. There should be investments right

now in this year's budget to get things happening in 2021; not just two, five or

10 years from now. We've been waiting for years already while jobs have been

disappearing. The can has been kicked down the road so many times that we're

running ou