PDF Version

May 1, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 71

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: I call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider a certain resolution and bill relating to the raising of loans by the province, Bill 73.

SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

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

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 73 and the related resolution.

Resolution

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

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $2,800,000,000.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for accommodating us today with the Loan Act, 2024.

Speaker, Budget 2024 identified a borrowing requirement of $2.8 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, and, today, we are introducing the Loan Act, 2024.

Under the authority of the Loan Act, 2024 and

section 38 of the Financial Administration Act , we will raise by way of loans not exceeding the amount of $2.8 billion. The Loan Act, 2024 will continue in full force and effect until the $2.8-billion limit is reached and is replaced by a subsequent loan act.

The last loan act was passed by the Legislature was the Loan Act, 2023, which provided long-term borrowing authority of up to $1.5 billion, an additional $700 million in long-term borrowing was provided throughout 2024, for a total borrowing authority of $2.2 billion. This was to ensure adequate ability to meet the 2023-24 cash requirements and to ensure acceptable flexibility and liquidity of government's borrowing program.

As of March 31, 2024, the province had a long-term borrowing of $2.1 billion for '23-'24. The Financial Administration Act authorizes new borrowings for the purpose of redeeming or retiring debt, making sinking fund contributions and for retiring unfunded pension liabilities. The Loan Act, 2024 is required to provide specific long-term borrowing authority to meet the 2024-2025 budgetary requirements.

Of the $2.8-billion borrowing for 2024-25, $1.2 billion is for debt repayment coming due in '24-'25 and the first requirement in the first quarter of '25-'26. Chair, I will say that one of the reasons why we're doing advance borrowing for '25-'26 is to ensure effective liquidity. The '25-'26 borrowing requirements come due early in that fiscal year and we wanted to ensure early borrowing to ensure we have adequate liquidity. One of the things that the bond-rating agencies continue to look for in Newfoundland and Labrador, and of course around the world, is to ensure that we always have effective amounts of liquidity.

Borrowing for debt maturities coming due at the beginning of the following fiscal year ensures the province has sufficient liquidity to repay such obligations while the budget and loan bill for '25 is being debated and approved before the Legislature. The remaining $1.6 billion in borrowing is required to fund such things as infrastructure expenditures and to make payments on the promissory notes of the province's pension plans.

Now, I just want to talk about infrastructure for a moment. This will include the capital amounts spending for things like infrastructure including roads, and this Legislature would be aware that in the last year we've assigned $1.4 billion to have a very strong and robust roads program. We have infrastructure issues in the province, and we wanted to address them. I've heard that from just about everyone on the other side, when they speak about requirements in their districts, they talk about roads. So we wanted to make sure that we have adequate funding to address their requirements for road spending, of course, health care spending and capital assets.

Some examples: $11 million to advance the work on the new cardiovascular and stroke institute; replacing of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital and long-term care centre in Bay St. George – very important projects. I think Members in this House would agree that we need to replace aging infrastructure; we need to ensure that we have the health care systems for tomorrow as well.

Thirty-five million dollars for capital equipment improvements at other health facilities, including the new Family Care Teams, urgent care clinics and ambulatory clinics. We want to make sure we have it up to date and ensure that we have good capital equipment in each of those facilities; $41 million for new schools in Cartwright, Kenmount Terrace, Portugal Cove-St.

Philip's and Pelley's Island; close to $300 million for upgrades of the provincial highways, including completion of the Team Gushue Highway and the twinning, of course, that is going on across the province; $29 million for improvements to the fleet of ferries and wharves; and $30 million to upgrade our fleet of highway equipment.

I want to talk a little bit about how we're transforming the province's finances as we work towards a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient and sustainable province. We're focused on a balanced budget. We've come a long way since 2020. I remember standing here – gosh, I can't believe it's my fifth budget – five years ago, we had a significant deficit, over a billion dollars. Of course, that was during a time of COVID and we've been able to work very, very diligently to bring that deficit down.

This year, we'll have a very slight deficit of about $152 million, which is approximately 1.5 per cent of our revenues, which when you speak to bond-rating agencies that's within balance. Next year, we will have a balanced budget and then for every year in the foreseeable future.

So, Chair, I think it speaks as a testament to the hard work and effort of government to, not only make the investments, because you've seen in this budget, you've seen in last year's budget, you've seen in the budget the year before, major investments including an additional billion dollars to my colleague, the Minister of Health, a billion dollars a year we're spending – a billion dollars more now than we spent five years ago. If I go back to 2020, we're spending a billion dollars more a year in health than we were then and that's a significant investment.

We've also done things to help with the cost of living, such as we've reduced a lot of taxation. We've maintained our fees. We've made investments in the social determinants of health. So all those things are very, very important when we're looking at how do we ensure this balance between ensuring that we have balanced budgets and ensuring that we make the right investments for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think this government has really worked hard to strike that balance.

I will say, Chair, there have been some that were concerned when I introduced into this House balanced budget legislation and I said I'll prove it, that we can do it. I think that I've proven that we can make those critical, important investments but, at the same time, ensuring that we grow our economy and that we make the investments to ensure that people are supported in this province. So that balance is there.

I will also say that we've done things like contributed to a Future Fund. I know that Members opposite didn't support government when we introduced a Future Fund. I think they'll support us now because, of course, we've been able to make those investments to the Future Fund. They are significant investments that would mean that this province will be on a better and stronger footing.

I'm just looking for my notice to how much we'll have in the next – allow me to tell you this. The Future Fund, by the end of this year, will have $286 million in it. We're estimating another $72.4-million contribution in this year. So that's an additional $73 million. So I think that adds up to close on almost $400 million that will have been accumulated.

Now, let me tell you, in the fiscal plan that we have, that I've introduced by way of this budget, in the fiscal plan, in the fiscal forecast, the contributions to the Future Fund will add up, in the next five years, to $1.6 billion. That's discipline; that's financial discipline. I think that any government would say that's prudent and responsible. We take money that we earn on our non-renewable resources and we put that aside into a Future Fund.

Now some would say: Well, you're still borrowing so you shouldn't do that. But I would say to the Members present that we earn more than we pay. So we're earning – just so that you know – annualized, almost 7 per cent, I think it's 6.86 per cent. We pay about 4.5 per cent. So to the end of February, I think we've earned something like $13 million on the Future Fund. So when I say $1.6 million, that's just in contributions. That's not how much we'll earn by way of investments.

We've debated in this House changes to the sinking funds. We are able to take the sinking funds, as we are able to take our money from our Future Fund, and we invest it. We did make changes to the way we invest in this Legislature, allowing us to invest in something other than just government bonds. We're able to now do municipal bonds and blue-chip stocks. So by making that change to the way we invest, we're earning more money and that's good for the people of the province.

Think about this now: We'll have in that fund, in the Future Fund, some $1.6 billion – billion dollars – in contributions, plus the interest earned. In the next 10 years, the only thing you can use that money for is to pay down debt. I think that's what we're speaking about today is how important it is that we do that.

So contributing to the Future Fund, we're ensuring now the sinking funds, when any new bond is issued, we're ensuring that there's an attached sinking fund. Why is that important? In times past, there weren't sinking funds. That's why we're rolling over debt. So we don't want lines of credit. We want to pay down our debt. It's like having a mortgage. You want to be able to be paying down your principal. So by attaching a sinking fund, yes, we borrow for that sinking fund, but we earn more money over time so that all accumulates and adds up, and that helps us to play the bonds at maturity. That is fiscally responsible.

I've already talked about the optimizing of the sinking fund performance. So thank you to the House of Assembly, I think we all voted unanimously in making that change. By making that change, we're able to optimize our sinking fund performance.

We're also lowering our cost of borrowing through opportunities such as the European borrowing program. Now we haven't entered into the European market as yet. We're still looking at it, but it's helping to ensure that we're getting the best rates possible when we issue our bonds. I can tell you, we have a strong bond program. Our bonds are selling out in record time and that is, I think, because we're out there, not only are we out there telling the market why investing in Newfoundland and Labrador is such a good investment, but we're also opening up other markets and that's making us stronger.

We're strengthening liquidity. That is one thing I know, we want to make sure we have all the cash reserves required. We've been there when we haven't. We want to make sure we have the cash reserves available to meet our obligations; any time we need that money we have the cash reserves available to be able to fund our operations.

Being a business owner, myself, or a previous business owner, I could tell you, I always used to say that cash is king. So making sure that you had those liquidities is important and, of course, speaks to the bond-rating agencies as well. They're always making sure that we have a liquidity available.

We have, in the past, had struggles there. I can tell you there are people in this Legislature that remember when it was difficult for us to raise money on the markets. Right?

We're borrowing a tremendous amount of money, but I think I've explained to the House of Assembly how we're managing that. So not only are we being fiscally responsible in terms of making sure that we're coming down to having a balanced budget, not only are we making sure that we have a robust borrowing program that brings down our cost of borrowing, we have also ensured that we have a sinking fund program and we have also ensured that we have a Future Fund program.

I think all of that speaks to a very positive, fiscally responsible Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's leading us to that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador that I speak about regularly.

So, on that, I'll take my seat and listen to the debate and answer any questions that may be.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I now call on the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure to get up, as I always say, in the House as the budget wraps down, this year's budget. I heard the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology say yesterday it was his 13th budget. I believe, when I did the calculation, this is my ninth, being in the House for it. So when I first came in, people used to say that, look, that's a lot. But now they're almost like, oh my. Anyway, enough said. When you're in your first one, you think you'll never imagine your ninth.

But it's always interesting. It's always an interesting debate. There are always lots of opportunities to speak about things that are important. There are not enough hours on that clock, we could all talk about issues that are important to the people of this province. It's what we do here in the House. Sometimes the banter can heat up and a lot of things can be said, but underneath all of that, underneath all of that emotion, there are a lot of people in this Chamber that care about the people. They represent and care about the people in this province. I would never say that – about 40 Members here, every one of us feel the same way. We just have a different way …

I said one time to the Premier, actually, there a while back and we had this sidebar conversation. I said: You know, we're all alike, but we have a different plan than you have, and our job is to sell the people our plan. We think our plan is better than your plan, and it's up to the people of the province to make that decision, which plan they like the best. How we get there is the result of it. How we get there, we got different ideas that will get there, but at the end of the day, we all have the same thing. The people of Newfoundland is at heart. It's our province.

A couple of years ago – well, last year, I guess it was. I always remember it and it's a moment that I'll never forget in the House, when MUN – and I'm waiting for them to reinstate the Ode. But, anyway, I think we may be getting closer. But I always remember the day in the House of Assembly – it was one of them moments that, I think, will stick with a lot of us forever. It's how we all stood together and we sang the Ode.

That just happened; there was no planning for it. I know I was speaking on it, very passionate about it, and the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board actually said: I feel like singing it. And I know she said let's sing it, and I know my colleague, Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation was on the same page and we all got up and sang it. Now, I never led the singing as I'll never profess to be a singer, but we have a few good singers there.

The Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality is good; I know one of our Table Officers is good; the Member for Cape St. Francis; and I even had the Member for Ferryland one year, it was a little bit of a play, we had a bit of a trick, that he was leading us off. Anyway, it was all good, though.

But it just reaffirmed where we're to and what we're really all about, because, again, we have different mindsets. We have different ideas how to get there, but at the end of the day, again, we love this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is something that we hold near and dear and it is a privilege to be in this House. Not everyone gets that opportunity to stand in here and speak on things for your district, things that are important to the province, things that you have strong beliefs in, things that you want to see improvements in; it is a pretty neat job, actually, to be able to get in to do that.

It is never lost on me. I think I saw that a lot when I stand, and I'll continue to say it because I think that's something that we sometimes miss. We get in here and we have that debate and a heated debate sometimes, back and forth, and I'm no different than the rest. I like to debate; I like to banter. I don't mind being challenged. Actually, the more I'm provoked, the more I'm challenged, sometimes that is my best moments.

I grew up and it was aways said I was stubborn, dog on bone, and I think I have proven that in here over the years. Telling me I can't do something and I could do it – I've said here before and I'll say it this morning because it just coming to mind as I'm saying it.

My Grade 5 teacher told me one time – I ran into him, and he's passed on since. He had dementia; he was a lovely man. He told me a few years back, before I got elected to politics, actually – I'll always remember; he was my Grade 5 teacher – he was teaching us science about dark and light and whatever you could see and he said: You argued with me and argued with me, you could see in the dark. And I never gave up on that argument because, in my mind, I was convinced that in dark rooms I could still see stuff and I would not give in that I could see in the dark.

But there's one thing that he told me. I'm probably going back five years before he took sick, or longer, about 10 years now because time goes. He told me he never forgot it, but he always respected that no matter what, against all adversity of him telling me, the rest of the class were not in agreement, but he said you never waivered and he said that's something that sort with him. Now, was I right? Obviously not, but at that time I was convinced and I stuck to my – his words were: You were very convicted. He respected the part that I was convicted. I was wrong, but my conviction to this cause he respected that I never backed away.

I guess that comes down to who I am. I'm very determined and I don't sway easily. I think a lot of Members of this House can see that sometimes. Sometimes it can be to my demise, but there we go.

I just wanted to move on to some of the issues here. There are a couple of things I want to mention. Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, we were having a pretty genuine Concurrence debate and there were lots of great issues. I know my colleague from Bonavista gave us a great education course on sealing and seals. I don't understand the fishery; I never professed – I come from an agricultural community. I've always appreciated the fishery, and trust me, I follow it like the regular Joe Q. Public, but I've never been totally invested in the fishery because I've never had to.

I've always learned, I listen to my colleagues, I listen to the Members of the House of Assembly talk about it. I listen and try to learn. So he gave us a great tutorial yesterday on the seal fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's pretty incredible, actually, when you listen to some of the facts and figures. I enjoy that stuff.

So we were going good. But then the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, who I have a good relationship with and I have a lot of respect for him, for some reason he got up and he through a bomb in the middle of everything in the latter parts of Concurrence and he starts going back to the budget day when we didn't come in here. And we were violating our Code of Conduct, wasn't it? Or our oath of allegiance, or ethics –

L. PARROTT: Integrity.

B. PETTEN: – integrity, you can add more. I can't remember all of those. I wish I had Hansard to try to remember. I never reacted; I sat there and I listened. I was like why are we ruining a good debate, we're talking about good things, lots of good issues here.

But I just wanted it to be on the record, though, to let the minister know that we never entered this Chamber that day because of safety concerns. We didn't feel safe. You go up to the side of the Confederation Building and see armed guards in riot gear lining the steps, police all around.

But the minister should realize, too, this is not the first rodeo for me. I emailed the Speaker on behalf of this caucus and told the Speaker we will not be attending the budget because we didn't feel safe, didn't feel it was a safe place to go, crossing any picket line. I respect any protest line and I will not go by them. That's something I do not only in the House of Assembly, any in my life.

I also told the Government House Leader that we would not be going to the budget. We were in communication and I just said we won't be attending. So there were no secrets here.

So for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to get on his soapbox at 5 yesterday evening, with 20 minutes left in Concurrence, and lecture us about us not showing up for the budget and how disgraceful it was, I take offence to because – fair enough, I'll banter in here with the best of them, but when you get up and what you're saying is factually not correct, it's wrong.

It incited three or four points of order because people felt equally frustrated by it. So what you get on with, we're talking about the budget, Chair. I know you might be looking about the relevance, but it's relevant because we were in a debate yesterday and we were talking about issues important to the province, and for some unknown reason, out of nowhere, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure takes it upon himself to go back and talk about something he had no earthly knowledge of what really happened.

My family, my daughters and my wife, told me, they pleaded with me, don't you go near that protest line, don't go out around that building. That's –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: We went out there as a group, and there was a level of reluctance to do it, but we went out there as a group because we were asked to go out there. We were asked to comment, they wanted the leader to speak to the media. That's where they were set up. That wasn't our first choice. We went there and we were assured everything would be safe. We did our thing and we left.

My family didn't want me to go near that, and I don't blame them. Do you know what? My colleague, a veteran, who also said yesterday he was up in Oka in Quebec, in Montreal, and he witnessed first-hand what you do when things can go sideways. That's not a slight against the fishermen or the protestors; you've got to be handling these things carefully. We weren't in there the night before. We knew things were going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: W e never came in here the night before. We had to go in the next morning with a police escort, and I did not feel comfortable going in with a police escort, nor did any of my colleagues.

We take our jobs very seriously, Chair, and something that no one on this side of the House of Assembly take for granted. We take our jobs very seriously. But for the minister to get in his place yesterday and thinking he's going to be smart and thinking he's the new cop in town for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, don't wash with this side of the House. It don't wash with me and I don't think it washed with anyone over here, and I think I can speak for everyone else on this side, it's totally nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: It's uncalled for, it's not appreciated, and the Member should be ashamed to get up in this House of Assembly and get on with that garbage.

I got that off my chest.

So, Chair, in my last few minutes, I just want to talk about carbon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Let's hear from the Member.

B. PETTEN: They liven up, Chair.

Anyway, I want to talk about carbon. They're awake today. It's good to see, because usually they're not awake this hour of the morning.

I want to talk about the carbon and the government's stance of trying to separate yourselves from the federal government. It's the Liberal way now to get away from the federal government; don't be attached to Trudeau; don't be attached to anything that's federal; carbon tax is bad; the federal Liberals are bad; everyone is bad; anything associated with the carbon tax is bad; you don't want to be near them.

It's affecting our daily lives and the public are not buying it. You're trying to sell it, the public are not buying it, because people do know, people don't forget that this Member – we had the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, who else? There was more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It's just getting a little bit difficult to hear the Member, let's listen to him now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Everybody's got the right to be heard and the right to speak, so let's give this man the right to be heard and speak.

B. PETTEN: That's right, Chair.

Thank you for your protection.

CHAIR: You got that all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: The Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning by the sounds of things. He doesn't want to listen to me.

But I tell you, Chair, the point of the matter is, they will try to separate themselves from the carbon tax because it's bad and it's a proverbial anchor around the leg of any Liberal in this country now because of the carbon tax. Whether you're provincial or you're federal, it doesn't really matter to the public. I've seen that first-hand. You go knock on doors anywhere in this province, people will tell you the same story.

I know there are people in this House that think it's the best thing ever. But we're not seeing anything about climate change. We're seeing how you're trying to deal with climate change. It's a losing argument, the carbon tax will never fly in this province, no matter how much you try to separate it, it will never work. The ship has sailed. It's moved on.

But the thing that frustrates you is, you're constantly hearing Members opposite trying to say, it's a new day, I can't believe they're doing that to us. But if we turn back the clock three years ago, we stood in this House of Assembly – and I have to remind the public, again, who wants to listen – we stood in this House of Assembly and we pleaded with government to stand with us and vote against anything to do with carbon tax. Make the stand. When I said about courage; it's about courage. It's about doing what's right and I never seen any courage from that side of the House of Assembly on that issue and today we don't see it.

The cost of living is rising, seniors are struggling. You hear it, we hear it constantly. We learned this week on mental health and addictions, another issue that's outstanding. People are struggling in this province.

You can live in these rose-coloured glasses and everything is great. The Premier is on his road show all the time travelling the world, you know, pit stops here. I wonder sometimes if he thinks he's the second coming of Barack Obama, but time will tell about that because he's tripping all over the place speaking. It's quite amazing actually.

Now, rumour has it, there may be a job opening coming up in Ottawa up on Parliament Hill. I'm wondering, there are rumours that he's probably getting ready. There are a few little French courses on the go and speaking at the Empire Club yesterday and where else is he? It's all these speaking engagements and maybe that's where he's heading.

Chair, you might make a weird face on that, but a lot of people out there that are in the know are saying that, so maybe we're not all out to lunch on it.

Maybe he should spend some time here in his own province and deal with the issues here that need to be dealt with for Newfoundland and Labrador.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I now call the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

I would just like to paint a little picture, I guess. We'll go back to March, budget time, and I will openly say I wasn't here on the day of the budget. The Speaker knew we weren't going to come here and no problem with it.

Never have I exposed anyone on the other side, whether they were here or not here. I'll go as far as to say, since 2019, I haven't missed a day. I'll even go as far as to say in January or February of 2023, we had an emergency debate in here on ambulance drivers, and I came in here that day with one leg. Post-surgery, I came in here to debate an important issue on a set of crutches because this Chamber isn't accessible and a wheelchair couldn't get in here.

For a Member of this House to call people out and question their integrity about whether they're here or they're not here, and that Member doesn't even know how to stay awake when proceedings are going on, it's shameful – absolutely shameful.

The reality of this House is that what happened in those days leading up to the 21st was well-known to this government. We received emails that morning at 9:35 telling us we required an escort. We were to congregate together and we would require a police escort to come in through here.

All the while, the Liberal government was here having a pajama party, and that is the truth of it. You came in here in the middle of the night and then –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: It's the truth.

You were here with sleeping bags and pyjamas, and then on top of that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: On top of that, for someone to question why people aren't coming in here when we were told that staff had to stay away.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Chair, point of order.

I take great exception, as a parliamentarian, I am required by law to be in this House when the House is open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: When a Member can say I was here having a pajama party, I take great exception.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I remind the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair that as parliamentarians, we are here to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the House was shut down two days prior to that. The House was shut down the day before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

What I'm going to do is invite my colleagues to just have a little patience. We are going to make a ruling on the matter of the point of order from yesterday. I think that will help us, guide us in our debate going forward. Maybe I would ask you, maybe we'll focus on Bill 73. What do you think?

We'll just go forward with that, but we will rule on the matter that was raised yesterday and we will get back to you. Otherwise, I think we're just carrying on the debate around that point yesterday.

So could I ask us to focus on Bill 73.

Thank you.

L. PARROTT: So as we talk about debating of Bill 73 and other bills that have not come to the floor of the House of Assembly, I'll remind the Members across the way that during this session we were shut down for two days – two days because there was nothing to come to the floor, a Wednesday and a Thursday, the week before the break leading up to budget. Two days in which we could have debated lots of different legislation which probably won't come to the House this time around.

We have a responsibility, make no mistake about it, but on the day of budget – let's go back a few days prior to when the protestors were at the Petten Building. There were no RCMP officers; no RNC officers; there were no horses; equally as hostile. The moment it came here, that morning, they were here.

If people want to laugh about what happened that morning and say, oh you've got pictures and you weren't afraid to cross and this and that, maybe they should tell that to the fisherman who is lying at home with his hip broke. Maybe they should tell that to that family who don't have that income coming in this summer. It is not an issue to be laughed at, made fun of, or called out.

At the end of the day, everyone has a right to congregate, protest and do what they want to do. That is their right. Nobody crossed. There's a big difference between crossing a line and standing in front of a line, having conversation, trying to find out what was going on. All of that is an entirely difference scenario.

What is not being said here is that the entire building was shut down, with the exception of people that were being told to get escorted in here. We did not get offered the exact same privileges and rights. We did not know it was going to happen. So here we are today, and for that to be brought up yesterday in the manner it was is just not above board.

CHAIR: Okay, I thank the Member and I ask you to please go back to Bill 73, as I just ruled –

L. PARROTT: I remind the Chair it is a money bill.

CHAIR: – w e are going to deal with the matter of the point of order and we'll report back to the House.

We've had a lot of debate on that. I'd ask to try to steer to other topics.

Thank you.

Good points. We've got them. We'll come back to you.

L. PARROTT: So on March 21, as we were spending the money to have RNC in here on overtime, outside the building to protect the proceedings of the House, when we were in the middle of a budget, when we were looking for ways to protect the House and we know that we're in budget time and the importance of it, I question that. Why didn't it happen at the Petten Building? Why did it happen those two days? What was the sense of urgency on that day, given the fact that we had Interim Supply already passed? Those are questions, and those questions are pertinent to this budget. They're pertinent to the Loan Act.

At the end of every road, we make decisions. It's money, money spent on overtime for RNC officers, money spent on overtime for – it was obviously a huge cost to the government coffers, there's no question about it. I think once we go back and look at that, we'll see exactly what it costed. Every single RNC officer on the Avalon Peninsula was here, every single one. Every one of them got called in.

Now, Chair, I won't beleaguer that anymore, but I will say this, things can go wrong in those types of situations and because they didn't go wrong doesn't mean it was the right decision. I'll hark back to what my colleague from CBS just said about being able to see in the dark, because obviously we can't see in the dark, but on some days, on some occasions, there are people in this House that can't see in the light either. Don't ever forget that.

We are in the middle of a budget, and I always say to the Minister of Finance, what gets brought up sometimes is well, you didn't support, you didn't support. I don't have any problem saying that there are good things in this budget. We see it, we know it's here. Does it go far enough? I guess that's where the questions come from, from this side all the time.

When we talk about a housing crisis, a health care crisis, a financial crisis, a homelessness crisis, we have an operational crisis, we had a crisis in the fishery in March; at every turn, everywhere we go, it feels as if we're in a crisis.

It's kind of funny because one of the Members spoke the other day and said: Are we better off than we were nine years ago? I think he spoke very eloquently, had some different facts that said we were. But I think if you were to talk to the men and women that we represent in this province in every single riding, I think they'd give you a different answer.

I think if you ask them how they get by day-to-day and if they feel that they're better off than they were in '15, '16, '17, '18, '19, '20, '21, '22, or '23, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to say: I feel we're better off. I think you'd hear them say: I don't know how I can afford to get groceries. I can't afford to pay my power bill. I can't afford to drive. My children are at school, they're struggling because their education is lacking because of COVID and they have a learning deficit in math now because of two years they missed there. Health care is in shambles.

My husband is sick, he can't get an MRI. All of those things come together and they wind up always just pounding down on the general public, no matter where you live in urban or rural Newfoundland, and it demonstrates that we're clearly not better off. We're clearly not better off.

Now we can argue about the finances and stuff. Our job in here is obviously to make sure that this province is in a good place financially and that we look after the people who put us here. But at some point, we need to understand that the people in this province are not being looked after. They're not being looked after.

When we look and we have bodies outside of hospitals because there's no room in the morgue and people can't afford to pay for funerals. When we have tent cities set up. You go to Labrador, the rate of suicide in Labrador and what's going on up there, it's just gone through the roof. We're no better off. We're definitely no better off. How do we get better off? That is a great question. I would say that not only this government but the next government has big challenges ahead of it.

But one of those challenges should be to recognize exactly where we are today and where we are today is in a far worse off place than we were nine years ago. It is an absolute fact. I would challenge the Finance Minister to go around and talk to the common person out there and see how they feel, because I will tell you, it's all we hear. I hear that from people who voted against me and voted for me. I don't just heart it from constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Yes, the overwhelming tone in the District of Terra Nova is that we're worse off. I'm not saying we haven't done good things, Minister, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying you haven't, we have. You guys have, absolutely, but what I am saying is the undertone with the average person in Newfoundland –

S. COADY: Society is changing.

L. PARROTT: Society is absolutely changing, there's no question about it and expectations are changing. But we need to change with that and I think that's what we're not good at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Anyhow, on that note, that's all I'll have to say today.

I always like to get up and speak on the budget and the Loan Act, and it's a pleasure to be in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I now recognize the Minister of Industry –

AN HON. MEMBER: Energy and Technology.

CHAIR: – Energy and Technology, I apologize.

A. PARSONS: It's okay, Chair, I get it wrong two to three times myself, so it's good.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this today. I hadn't planned on it, but I did want to get up and contribute to this conversation. I don't think I'm going to take the 10 minutes, but maybe I will.

My colleague across the way, my critic for the department, who – we have numerous conversations – makes some points. Some of them, depending on how you look at them, we could agree or disagree. But one of them I want to point out, because sometimes these conversations require context.

So the big point that sort of jarred me – and, in the last number of years, I don't usually get caught up too much in debates. Again, having sat on that other side – I've sat on that other side. Not everybody certainly in government has sat on the other side, but I've sat there and I know the work that goes into it, the mindset, hearing from constituents. Sometimes the reality is that having not been in government, my opinion changed when I got into government because I realized some of the things that I've been asking for, arguing for, making a point for were different when I got in.

The point I just heard very sharply was people talking about how things are worse than they were nine years ago. Now, just a couple of points I would make there. Just by saying nine years ago makes it a political point because you're trying to go back to when there was a change in government. Two points I would make to that, Sir.

One could theoretically make the argument they are worse than they were 14 years ago. I don't think it's necessarily a political thing. The reality we all deal with now – and governments in Nova Scotia, which are Progressive Conservative, are dealing with tent cities; they are dealing with health care issues. In fact, that government in Nova Scotia was elected to fix health care issues. I can tell you they still face health care issues. We got the NDP in BC, same thing. They're dealing with these as well.

So the point that I make, and maybe not to the other side, maybe just to people listening: We have to recognize – we're making this oh, it's worse than 2015. That's not a valid point. Now, one could make the point, are they worse than they were three years ago, four years ago, 12 years ago? One could argue in many ways, yes. Do you know why? Because we've dealt with the biggest thing we've all dealt with, which was a pandemic. The point about the education, I agree. I had children that were not getting teaching. But I can guarantee you, you could've had any government of any stripe of any generation dealing with that and I think our children would face that same issue. That is my point.

The second thing that I come back to is that if we were to switch over and put my colleague in my chair and me over in my colleague's chair, I still would like to think that a lot of the issues we face would be the same because they're not created by us. They're created by economic turmoil abroad. They're created by movements right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: I'm willing to bet there are more protests happening now – what we're seeing in universities in the United States, we're seeing police going into places of higher learning and taking people out. I'm not going to get into my opinion on Gaza, Israel, it's not relevant here. But we're talking about the protesting. We're talking about Tent City.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trucker rally.

A. PARSONS: Yes, we had a convoy not long ago.

Do you know what? I will point out. We have faced Tent City type issues in Labrador well before I was ever in a government chair. Well before I was ever in a government chair, we faced Tent City issues, homelessness and stuff like that in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We still face it.

It is a generational issue that we are facing and there is no solution. The minute that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General sends the police in – as is requested at times: Send the police in – you get criticized. If you reduce the police presence – criticized.

We need to decriminalize drugs. It has worked elsewhere. What is BC doing now? Changing the opinion on that. The reality is that these problems that we face, a lot of them are massive. They're massive and again, they're not just one government. They are certainly not a political stripe. We deal with them all and finding that right solution is difficult.

I come back to the point that I wanted to address – and it's funny because we're all doing this during the Income Tax Act , but it is an opportunity I had to respond to that. I challenge my colleagues across the way to say that if we switch the seats, these issues would all be gone, because that is not a true, real argument.

A lot of these issues we face here, I can tell you, I faced when I was in Opposition and I criticized. I criticized how we were housing prisoners. I criticized that. I got in here and I have a chance to fix it. I'd like to think we made improvements, but there's a heck of a lot of improvements still to be made.

When I was there, I tried to get the prison built. Do you know what got in the way? COVID. Try building a house now compared to what it was in 2019 building a house. Well, a prison is that, grown exponentially. We know there needs to be a new prison, but we can't force people to bid on that. We cannot force them, but the minute that you try to go back to the drawing board to get it right because we don't want to spend that on a sole source – how come you're not building the prison?

I would say it's difficult there. So the point I make is that I'd like to think that Members on this side, and Members on the other side, are trying to get to a better place. I recognize some of the difficult choices we make, I'd like to think that I am surrounded by colleagues that are making choices that have made certain things better.

It's hard sometimes to see that through the cloud of frustration that we feel with specific issues. I can tell you, there are a lot of issues back then we didn't hear about because not everybody's grandmother had Facebook. My grandmother has Facebook. Before, she couldn't put it out there that she had a hard time to get her blood appointment; now she can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSON: There it is. That is true.

I've sat in this chair 13 years and the person before me was my father, and I can tell you, I bet you – and I know he agrees and I know colleagues that were sat in this House at that time would agree – the problems we face are more pronounced and evident than they were then because we're all able to communicate more clearly with each other, everybody, than there was then.

I've seen a difference since 2011. I've seen that difference. So I put that out there; we need to keep those things in mind. Yes, I'm not ever saying that there are not challenges. My God, we have put one of the largest investments in health care we've ever seen – ever. Do you know what? Next year, take us out, if there's another government here, they'll probably make a bigger one. I can guarantee that it will not change some of these issues that are systemic. It is so hard to fix.

But on that note, what I can tell you is that every night when I go home to sleep, I'd like to think that I sleep okay knowing that I'm making decisions that are trying to make it better and I am trying to leave something a bit better to my kids than what was left to me. That is something I think we all share.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say, as somebody who is not with either of the parties, to my colleague who just spoke, the minister, that was probably the most down-to-earth, sensible thing I've heard spoken, perhaps on either side of the House, in a long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I'll give credit where credit is due.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a chance.

P. LANE: Yeah, give me a chance. Don't worry; it's not going to last too long.

But anyway, I just want to take my first 10 minutes to speak specifically to the bill in the sense that I understand it's a money bill and we can kind of talk about whatever we want, but I just want to focus in on the specifics of the loan itself.

I was listening to the Minister of Finance – and I'm going to preface my remark by saying that I do not mean this in a disrespectful way to the minister, I do not mean it as a disrespectful way to this government, but the whole process, to some degree, we've heard the expression, trying to put lipstick on a pig. I feel that way because we are in a tough financial situation and the minister, to her credit, and doing her job and so on, and the politics around it as well, trying to make it seem positive – as positive as she can. I understand that. There are good things in the budget.

I'm not being negative on everything in the budget. There are good things there. I understand we have to look out for people and the needs of people. My colleague from Terra Nova talked about are people better off now than they were and so on.

We know that there are always more and more needs and more and more demands for limited funds. But it is important to note that in this budget we are borrowing $2.8 billion – $2.8 billion with a B. The minister has said that $1.2 billion of that money is debt repayment.

So to put it, I guess, in layman's terms, would kind of be like, I'm assuming, if somebody had some credit card debt, for example, and other debt, high-interest debt, and they went to the bank and the bank said we're going to consolidate your credit cards and whatever. Then we're going to give you a loan to pay off that high-interest debt and now you're going to pay less money in interest to us on the bank loan than you would be paying there. So, basically, you're taking on debt to pay off debt at lower interest rates. My understanding is that would be the gist of the $1.2 billion.

The $1.6 billion, though, that's the one that concerns me the most, I guess. Because we're talking about balanced budget legislation. We're talking about the fact that this year, we have a projected deficit of $152 million. So we're doing well. It's after going down year over year over year. That is a good thing. That is a positive thing and if we're going to achieve a balanced budget next year, that's a good thing. On the surface, that sounds like a great thing.

But if the way that we're achieving balanced budgets is by taking on new debt. For example, we're going to take another $1.6 billion, the minister says, and we're going to spend it on roads because, as the minister said, everybody – well, you don't hear me speaking about road, I speak about Team Gushue, in fairness, I do, finishing Team Gushue, but Members over here, my colleagues, are always bringing up the conditions of roads in their districts and so on and there are Members on the government side who have the same issues. So I'm not suggesting that roads don't need to be fixed, don't need to be repaired, don't need to be replaced.

She talked about money that is being invested in health care and other initiatives as well. We're going to build a new St. Clare's hospital and we're doing renovations, I think, to the Health Sciences or whatever the case might be. All these other facilities that – we're going to build four schools. She talked about one in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, one in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, one in Paradise – anyway, whatever it was. There were four schools she named.

Those are all important things, but the fact of the matter is, we're going to borrow $1.6 billion to pay for all that. So it's a bit of a smoke and mirrors game, if you will, when on the one hand you say: Hey, look how great we're doing, we've only got a $152-million deficit this year. We're going to have a balanced budget next year. At the same time, we're going to put the province further in debt because we're going to borrow $2.8 billion this year – $1.6 billion is going to pay for all these things that, arguably, we should be paying for out of the budget.

Arguably, if we have a budget and the budget is $9 billion or whatever the amount is, arguably, if we were having a truly balanced budget situation, it was truly balanced, then we would be paying for schools, we'd be paying for health care staff and so on, we'd be paying for roads, we'd be paying for all that stuff and we'd be able to do that out of the $9 billion, but we're not. We're saying we've got a balanced budget or almost a balanced budget this year, balanced budgets after that, but we're still borrowing for Capital and other things. We're still borrowing and adding to the provincial debt.

Now, I'm not being critical of the minister and I want to be very clear to the minister, I am not being critical of her or the government for that. I understand the fiscal circumstance we're in. I'm sure the minister would love it if we were in a situation where we could do exactly what I am saying: We've got enough revenue coming in that we don't have to borrow anymore for anything. No more borrowing. How wonderful would that be? How wonderful it would be if we didn't have to be borrowing.

But the fact of the matter is, we are a small province and we have a huge provincial debt and it is taking away from our ability and a lot of money coming out of that to pay interest on debt and so on. It's hampering our ability to be able to pay for what we need, what the people in the province need, what the people in the province expect of the government.

I know that the demands are great, and even with all this money that's being spent, there are still needs and we can all point them out. I can stand up now, any Member of this House can stand up and say: You need to put more money into school resources, you need to put more money into mental health resources, you need to put more money into other infrastructure. Everybody can stand up and start listing out things: You need to cut taxes, we need more money for seniors, we need more money for recreation. The list is endless.

So I don't envy the minister, the government – any government for that matter – to have to deal with that fiscal circumstance that we have. But we can't ignore it and pretend it's not an issue because it is an issue. While we may agree or disagree on how the money is being spent in this budget, whether we think all the expenditures, all of the – quote, unquote – investments are good ones or bad ones or whether I think you should be spending money somewhere, I think you shouldn't be spending money somewhere else. We're all going to have our views and opinions on that.

But at the end of the day, we still find ourselves continuing to borrow more money and going further and further into debt. There's no easy answer to it. We could cut. Then, of course, the public would be in a major uproar if you started laying off people and cuts, and the Opposition would be over here and they'd be saying this is ridiculous, you're cutting all these jobs and blah, blah, blah. I get it. It's not easy.

So the only other way, of course, is to increase revenues. Now I am hopeful – I'm hopeful in that regard, listening to the Minister of Energy the other day and talking about all the opportunity we have. I agree with him, we've got tons of opportunity. Hopefully, it's going to be a big opportunity come our way when it comes to our electricity and the Upper Churchill and, hopefully, Gull Island. Hopefully, with the wind energy projects, it's going to create lots of employment and taxation and money and we'll find ourselves in a better place.

I don't envy that there are challenges, but I think it's important we always keep our eye on the debt that continues to grow in this province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Member's time is over.

I'll now recognize the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.

I thank the Member opposite for his questions and his passion on this regard. I always appreciate listening to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands when he talks because he is concerned about the financial situation of the province. I have worked very diligently to ensure that we have a better fiscal future.

But I want to address a couple of things that he remarked that I think will be helpful. I completely agree that we don't want to borrow as much money as we're borrowing. I am concerned about the net debt of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that the Member opposite kind of went from the total public service debt and then went into the net debt, so there's a little bit of a confusion there, but allow me just a few moments to kind of walk it through.

So in net debt, we are rising by about 0.6 of a billion dollars, so $600 million. So we're going from, if memory serves, $17.2 billion to $17.8 billion this year. Now, Chair, one thing I would say to the Member opposite, I won't disagree with him on this, because I don't have a problem with borrowing money for infrastructure. The reason I say that is, and I'm going to relate it to our own homes and our own personal situation, I don't mind going out and borrowing money for my house, knowing that I have an asset.

So I go out and I borrow money, which I have, and I buy a house, which I pay off during the period of time and, at the end of the day, I have a good asset. Completely logical for most people in this House because most people in this House would have gone out and borrowed for a mortgage. Not many people have money in their back pocket to go buy a house, the same with the government.

You're going out there and you're buying a billion-dollar hospital. I think that's what the Corner Brook hospital costed, and I'm using relative terms. Let's say it was a billion dollars. Well, you're not sitting on a billion dollars in cash, but you know you have an asset here. You have a good asset. You're going to have an asset that's around, I'm going to say, 50 years. Sometimes we have them for a lot longer than that, if you look at some of our facilities, but a 50-year asset there.

So at the end of the day, you pay it down. I think that's the critical piece is: one, our cost of borrowing; two, your ability to pay. That's why I said when I stood up earlier how important it was for Newfoundland and Labrador to have sinking funds attached, because you don't want to roll over your debt. Sometimes it could be a higher debt. If we're rolling over debt now, you know you're paying more today than you would have been paying during the height of the pandemic because the interest rates would have been lower.

So the two things that I consider when I'm looking at our financial situation is (

a) our ability to pay, and the Member opposite is absolutely right. We have this year, in this year's budget, the highest revenue that Newfoundland and Labrador has ever enjoyed. Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the highest revenues per capita in the country. It's usually either ourselves or Alberta that's first.

Now can you imagine, that's how much revenue that we have as a province. So we have a robust economy, I'm hoping it will even be stronger. I know the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology and the Minister of Tourism and other economic ministers are working very hard to continue to grow our economy. So our ability to pay, I think is very, very important. But I don't have a problem borrowing for infrastructure, as long as it's within reason.

When I first bought my house, I didn't go out and buy a million-dollar home because I knew I couldn't afford a million-dollar home. I bought a home that I could afford. That's what we have to think about when we're borrowing, because in our debt as well – so deficit is comprised of our money within our debt, that's critically important to get our deficit down. I know the Member opposite is very supportive of making sure that we are within the range of balance. I appreciate his support on that because people like to spend money; it's hard when you have to make that balance. So that's one thing, making sure our deficit is down.

Two, also within our debt is our pension promissory notes; $3.8 billion in pension promissory notes. Now we are getting our pensions under control, we still have some work to do in some areas, but overall the public service pension is now fully funded because of this promissory note and the Teachers' Pension Plan is now fully funded because of the promissory note. So we have to make sure that we're funding our pensions because it is an obligation.

Then there's what I want to call the infrastructure. So we have to be careful what we're doing with infrastructure, but I say to the Member opposite, I think within reason we can borrow for infrastructure. What you're seeing is pretty much the same amount of money as we borrowed last year for infrastructure.

So we've got to continue to bring down our cost of borrowing, that's some of the things that I spoke about when I spoke earlier, we've got to continue to bring down our cost of borrowing, we have to borrow within reason and we have to make sure we have liquidity. So all those things, it's kind of a building block.

I will remind the House that we have had a bond-rating upgrade. I think that's very, very good for us as well. We have opened up our bonds to other potential investors, I think that's positive. All those things are building blocks.

But I certainly appreciate the Member opposite, his perspective on saying that it would be wonderful if we had the money to be able to pay for the construction. I will say to the Member opposite, I don't think we should be overly concerned, as long as our ability to pay is there and that we are not overdoing it. We don't build – for me – a million-dollar house when I could afford a $500,000 or a $400,000 or a $300,000 house.

So we have to be responsible in what we're doing, we don't over borrow and that we have the ability to pay off our debt and making sure that we have sinking funds attached. This is why I was so strong on the Future Fund, Chair. As I said earlier, $1.6 billion that will help us pay down our debt.

So I appreciate the Member opposite's support and I appreciate his words on the strengthening of our finances. We have to make sure that we are focused on balanced budgets, we have to make sure that we have sinking funds, we have to make sure that we have the Future Fund to help us pay down the debt in the next number of years and we have to continue to grow our economy, all very strong points on how Newfoundland and Labrador becomes a stronger and sustainable province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I now recognize the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

I want to mention to Scott Martin watching in Elliston that his Member is no economist. I might get up and stand up and talk about figures, but I'm not an economist. But I'm going to throw out a few things in the 10 minutes that I would have to speak on it.

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands talks about the debt. He talks about the net debt. Most people like Scott Martin in Elliston, they can't distinguish and don't know a lot about whether we're talking about the net debt or the total debt. The minister just said in her address there: do not want to borrow and referenced concern. I would say a lot of people would be concerned about the debt that we would have and that is correct what the Member had stated.

The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure mentioned yesterday, and he was selective in what he said, about the things within the province and there are successes, what he stated – and we do it over here, too, we're selective sometimes in what we throw out and maybe what my address now might be is a lot of selected items. But the bottom line that he had stated yesterday, he said: The expenses are under control. Remember, I don't have Hansard to go by, just my notes that I wrote down: The expenses are under control.

Anybody out in Newfoundland and Labrador would look at, on a cash basis, income versus expenses; revenue versus expenses. If we continue to have a large gap between that, then that's a concern. That's a concern that many Newfoundlanders have.

Yesterday morning, I sat down with an economist. Remember, I'm not an economist, but I sat down with one. The economist had stated that it's a job to get a read on the budget document. That is from the economist: It's a job to get a read on the budget document.

The Member for Bonavista can't say what is the issue with the budget document, but when I went back to the office, I knew there was an

article I read one time and it was by C.D. Howe Institute. They're rather an independent think tank. The last report says, The ABCs of Fiscal Accountability: The Report Card for Canada's Senior Governments, 2023 . I will just read it. It rates the transparency of the budget document for Canadians to view and it ranks all the provinces and the federal government. It does a ranking on the transparency of the budget document.

Well, C.D. Howe gave us the worst rating in Canada, but we weren't alone because the federal government had the same mark. Every other province was higher. I would say, when we look at the budget document and we ask questions or we think about the transparency in the document, there is room for improvement, then CD Howe might say, yes. Or they do say in their 2023 report that, yes, there certainly is.

I recall the President of Treasury Board and Finance Minister stood up minutes ago and stated about borrowing for infrastructure as long as we've got the ability to pay. That's a fair comment: as long as we've got the ability to pay. Do we need to improve our infrastructure? One hundred per cent. But that thing about the ability to pay is something that many people would question as to what we have or what truly is our ability to pay.

If we look at our net debt, the previous speaker from Mount Pearl - Southlands mentioned about the deficit and keep in mind that the deficit is projected at $152 million this year. In last year's budget, it was stated that we were going to eliminate the deficit, but we added on $400 million. That's probably for unforeseen circumstances or things that happen that might be on a global basis, that's all. But every year we look at, our debt is increasing.

When this government came in in '15-'16 I remember the first budget that they talked about they mentioned that we were oil dependent; we need to diversify. Correct; 100 per cent, we need to diversify. But when the first budget came in, they were very critical of the outgoing government, that they overinflated the price of oil. They put the price of oil up in the budget document to make sure that the revenue coming in was getting closer to what the expenses going out were. We did a forecast on it. I don't know exactly what that budget is, but the minister may be able to expand upon, but it was considerably below and thought not to overinflate.

We have our price per oil now budgeted at $82. We can use the resources and the institutions that we came up with the $82 figure. The only thing I know is that on VOCM news, a bond-rating agency mentions about the projected Brent oil price of $82 per barrel appears optimistic in relation to current prices.

Now, that's only one. I'm just saying from the benchmark, what they had utilized. But here's what we have and these figures. In 2016-17, our net debt was a little over $12 billion – I won't read it out. The total debt was very, very close to $16 billion. Net debt, total debt – we're talking net debt. In 2021-22, our net debt was a little over $16 billion. Our total debt was a little over $24 billion. I'm sure the minister is going to raise the issue as to what is attributed to that debt. That's coming, and that's fair enough. But in '24-'25, our net debt is a little over $17.5 billion. Our total debt is $33.5 billion.

Now if someone said that when we look at balance and concern for our debt, that's a fair comment. I think that's a fair comment what we would have.

So the minister often talks about balance, and she is correct. She is 100 per cent correct that we've got to seek the balance to make sure that what we do. The ever-increasing debt is a concern of what we would have.

I just want to slip this in. The Member for Burgeo - La Poile stood up and had a wonderful address. He stated about what difference it would be from one side or the other side if we changed seats. So when the next election is over, if you're over here and we're over there, what difference it would be because of the global economics. The only think I would say, we would hope that we wouldn't have the highest amount of business bankruptcies in the country.

The drop of 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent, conceivably, would make a small difference in those small businesses. That is something that we would hope. The National Business Institute or group that would have rated us as being the worst when it comes to red tape and bureaucracy in the country – does that stymie business growth? I would say, yes, it does.

So were talking about operational issues that are different because how we run our House is on us. That doesn't matter about the global economy and the pressures we've got, but how we run our House is on us. If we're talking about operational issues, that is on us.

One little note that I would say is that health care continues to grow. We know that. We all know that health care would be our biggest ticket. But when we've got to service our debt to the tune of $1.2 billion, which is more than what the fishery brings in, which we think, under a good action plan, the fishery will bring in more to our province that will increase the revenue in, these are the things, I think, that would make a difference between our side. If we did have a chance to have a go at it, we think we would make a difference on the revenue side, control the expenses and, hopefully, reduce the debt.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thak you, Mr. Chair.

I may take a couple of moments to talk about the Loan Act. I think it's really, really important and I'm excited to have the opportunity to stand up after some very good speakers. The MHA for Bonavista, I always listen to him intently to see what he has to say about the rural parts of the province that he's very much involved in and very much excited to speak about the people in his district that are watching each and every day. I am excited to say that every day he stands up, I'm looking forward to the next name that comes up, that comes to the table of the House of Assembly. I'm sure they appreciate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: I wasn't going to say that, the MHA for Terra Nova, but fair enough.

We are talking about the Loan Act. The MHA for Bonavista did talk about a couple of things that I'd like to highlight, myself. Being here in 2015, when we got elected in 2015, he did mention that oil revenues were the reason why the budget was wrong. I don't believe that to be the case at all. I believe that played a

part in it, but when you do a budget in 2015, prior to us coming into office, and you tell the people of the province that it's going to be a $1.1-billion deficit – bad enough, fair enough. When we actually get in and get elected in November of that year and the Premier of the day goes down into the media centre and sits there and tells the people of the province the actual truth about what the bank balance is and how bad it was and how misguided, I guess, the budget forecasting was in general terms to a deficit of $2.7 billion.

It's sickening, as a person that just got elected at the time, days before, to find out that's what the people – and I will say to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I felt hoodwinked, quite honestly, like you did with Muskrat Falls. I felt hoodwinked on the fact that we were told, and the people of this province were told, $1.1 billion by the Progressive Conservatives in 2015. It was actually $2.7 billion when we actually got into the books that day we got elected. I look at independents on the other side, they were both on this side of the House at the time, and both seeing the budget as it existed at that time.

So the challenging part for all of us on this side, at that point, was every government, when they turn, there are always issues. There definitely are. Most times there is no food in the kitchen cupboards when you come in. When we took office, they actually took the cupboards off the wall before they left.

So what I'm suggesting we really need to do is elevate the conversation to where it needs to be today. What are we going to do that's better for the people of the province? We're all trying, all 40 of us – 38 of us that are in this House, currently – are all trying to do our part to make it better for the constituents that we all represent.

I get the opportunity to represent the beautiful District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville. I always say historic, it was created in 2015, so I'm quite excited about the historic aspect of my district. Not like some of the districts in this province, it was created out of a population boom that's happening in St. John's. It was a great opportunity for the people in the province and the people of St. John's. We've got a significant amount of issues, not just in St.

John's, right across our province, about things that we're talking about with respect to housing, things that we're talking about with respect to drug use, things that we're talking about with respect to health care. All of those things are not lost on any of us on this side of the House. That's why we've made the single biggest investment in health care, as a government, ever.

Since 1949, the single biggest investment in health care was made by this government in this House of Assembly and everybody in this House of Assembly should be proud of that. It's important. Now we want to ensure that that investment, we get the best outcomes for the people that we all represent. Each and every dollar that's invested, we want to make sure we get the best out of it. That's what we're going to continue to try to do with the Health Accord and other documents that we're working on and other issues and programs that we're going to be trying to do within the health authority.

That's one of the things that my residents always call me about with health care. They see some improvements; obviously, it's not fast enough. We want to move it as fast as we can, but it is a very big beast. Health care in Newfoundland and Labrador is a very big beast. It is hard to change on a dime, that's why the Health Accord is a 10-year document. Over the next number of years and months and weeks, you're going to see changes. Those changes are going to be, hopefully, moving in the positive direction for everybody that we represent.

The MHA for Bonavista did talk about small business. We did reduce the small business tax, which is a good point and I do thank him for highlighting that because that was a very good thing that we did. But in addition to that, we've also put a $2-million investment with the Employers' Council, as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Board of Trade, to help administer small businesses with the transition from the increase that happened with minimum wage.

That's hard for our small businesses and we understood that. We looked at that. We looked at how we could do that. We did it last year. Now we did it a little bit outside of government with an agency like the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, in partnership with the Board of Trade. That's an important investment.

I think the businesses that are going to be impacted and have the least ability to pay, for those increases, because of the small nature of their business – small business under 100 employees that have employed the minimum wage, I encourage you in the next couple of weeks, there will be an application that will be available through the Employers' Council to apply in your districts, let your business know, your small business to apply for that.

Anywhere between $2,500 and $5,000 that will be coming in to help alleviate some of those costs and burdens, cost of living that would have happened because of the increase in minimum wage. That is two aspects and there are many others that would be involved in that for small business.

No new taxes is an important piece for me in my district. That was something that the residents wanted me to be fighting for them for. Reducing the gasoline tax, that's important, 8.05 cents a litre off, the second lowest in the country and very important for us to do that.

I know that as the Minister of Environment people on the other side will throw barbs sometimes and say I voted for carbon tax. That is true, I did. I'm not going to stand up here and deny that I voted for carbon tax. I did vote for the made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach that we did have. I fought very hard to keep it because I thought the industries that we had exemptions for were important.

The federal government decided not to do that in our way. I've sent numerous letters and had numerous conversations with Minister Guilbeault on that very topic. He does not see it the way I see it or the way we see it and the way, I guess, you guys see it as well. That's something that I would hope the education from all of us, including me, would break him down a little more to do that.

We did get some successes with the exemption of home heating oil, which is an important exemption. We wanted more. The Newfoundland and Labrador approach was a better approach.

Without saying anything about carbon tax in general terms, we're hitting our targets in Newfoundland and Labrador. Based on 2030 targets, we're going to hit them, not because of carbon tax, because of the things we're doing on this side of the House as a government and as a people in the House of Assembly that we're supporting. That's why we're going to hit our target.

We have the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act that's very strong on industry and partnerships with industry ensuring we work with them and stakeholders, by the way. The shareholders of these industry organizations and industry players are forcing industry to do better and do it better from our greenhouse gas perspective.

I'm going to hopefully get an opportunity to speak a little bit more about that, but I couldn't let my friend, the MHA for Bonavista, get up without me having to come up and say a few words about some of the things that we've had the opportunity to do.

I'm hoping to get to talk a little bit more about the Oil to Electric Incentive Program, as well as the EV program over the next little bit, but we've seen a significant increase in uptake in that. I know that we've made some changes in that program to allow low-income individuals to get more money, up to $22,000. I encourage people to apply through the utilities. Thank you to the utilities for the great work they're doing in getting this program out to the masses as quick as we can.

There are some 40,000 homes that are on oil in this province. We need to transition all of them. It's going to be an important piece for us. It's going to be an important piece for them for two reasons: One, because it reduces our greenhouse gas emissions in this province, which is a great thing; and two, because of affordability issues. You can save anywhere between 50 and 60 per cent in your own personal home and your own personal expenses for energy and heat and things like that by making those changes. So it's good for your pocketbook; it's good for the environment.

That's where I'd like to end, Mr. Chair, and I hopefully will get the opportunity to stand up again and if the spirit moves me because of the MHA for Bonavista, I'll look to do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'll now recognize the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

It's an honour to stand again in the House of Assembly on behalf of the constituents of the District of Harbour Main. I always want to thank them for having the faith and trust in me to represent their interest and needs in the House of Assembly.

It is important to speak about this bill. It's Bill 73,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. So we hear a lot of figures stated here, Chair, and I'm, by no means, an economist. So I try to understand as best as I can what is the most relevant and pertinent information we need to know when we're talking about this bill.

I guess the most important thing that I see from this bill is the fact that the projected borrowing for this year, for 2024, is $2.8 billion. I think it's also important to recognize another figure, which is what the cost of servicing the debt is, which is $1.2 billion. So I think those are the figures that I'm going to concentrate on in the rest of the 10 minutes that I have to speak.

I'm going to start, first of all, about talking about the responsibilities and the obligations of our government. No one ever said it was easy to govern. So we appreciate when we hear the realities spoken, for example, from the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology in debate earlier because he spoke about the realities, he spoke about how difficult it is to make decisions when it comes to governing and the challenges that any government will face in making those tough decisions.

I guess what's really important here is that we know that most Members of this hon. House of Assembly, when they make those tough decisions and they make the calls that they have to make when investing the money that is involved here, the billions of dollars that is involved, that they are doing that with the best intention. I don't think any of us would really dispute that. I think that needs to be recognized. It is difficult to govern, and there's no question about that.

With respect to the Minister of Finance earlier when she discussed the issue of the debt that our province faces, that there is concern, that she, as the Minister of Finance, is concerned about that debt. So that needs to be acknowledged. That is important for the people of the province to recognize. These decisions that are made are tough and cause a lot of concern for the people that are in government that make them.

Having said that, though, when we look at the obligations of government, there are many moral obligations in serving the people that you represent, the people that have elected you. Caring for our seniors is a very important moral obligation and requires incredible investment. Educating our young people is such an important, significant responsibility and requires significant investment.

Tending to our sick and our frail in the province, that is a huge responsibility and requires incredible amounts of funding and investment to do that job properly. Keeping our people safe and protected in our society and in our community is, again, a huge responsibility and one that also requires significant financial investment.

Public infrastructure: We know that the investment that's already been mentioned, $1.4 billion over five years, that's a huge investment by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure and requires fairness and equitable allocation of those resources to people throughout the province. Of course, our growing economy, keeping that growing, that is also important.

Those are some of the more moral obligations, but one of the things that needs to be focused on is sound, financial management. When we look at that theme of sound, financial management, every government has a responsibility. They have a duty to ensure fiscal responsibility.

I would say that that responsibility, this government talks a lot about that responsibility, but I would argue they haven't lived up to it, Chair. They have not lived up to honouring that responsibility, and we hear about the Future Fund. They talk about the Future Fund and we're now borrowing money at a time of very high borrowing costs to put into a Future Fund, which can be argued is a fund that they can spend at will. But this Future Fund is an example of borrowing at a time where there are very high borrowing costs. So it can be argued that this is questionable, this Future Fund.

When we look at the equalization piece, the province is back on equalization; we're a have-not province once again. Those are the facts that need to also be acknowledged when we're talking about the realities of our fiscal situation here in this province. When we look at wasted money, Chair, the travel nurses' fiasco, the sole-source contracts for travel nurses, first we learned it was $35.6 million from April to August 2023, then it went to $40.95 million from September to December 2023.

Now if we add on what they may have spent in the first three months, we're looking at approaching $100 million, Chair. These are sole-source contracts. These are questionable. Are we giving good value for taxpayers' money, that has to be asked. This government, I would submit to you Chair, has a record of sole-sourcing very expensive and wasteful contracts, and that has to be acknowledged.

So we ask, when we look at Budget 2024 , has the government done better in this budget? What have the members of the financial community had to say about this, about Budget 2024 ?

It's not a glowing report, Chair. It's not. The RBC said that it's disappointing to see the improving – there had been an improving trend, but it reversed. Under the fiscal plan laid out in Budget 2024 , Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to hold the heaviest debt burden – the heaviest debt burden – in all of Canada. That is not a very good analysis or assessment of this budget, and we're hearing it from members of our financial community. The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the executive director Jay Goldberg said he is concerned that government is running a deficit again this year, instead of balancing the books as it had planned.

That deficit, I'll remind everyone again, the projected borrowing is $2.8 billion of taxpayers' money, Chair. So he asks the question: Does the government understand why the federation is so concerned about deficit financing? The answer should be obvious.

When we look at the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade, Chair, another representative from our financial community has concerns about Budget 2024 and about the spending and the allocation of spending and deficit. This is according to Keith Goulding in an interview with NTV from the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade, he said: Right now, servicing that debt is probably one of the largest items in the budget so that needs to be addressed, as we need to work at keeping that debt down and reducing our debt so that we, as a province, can focus on investments.

Chair, I submit to you that the picture is not as rosy as it's portrayed. We need to be realistic and objective when we're looking at things. People want to hear the facts. They want to hear what's accurate. They don't want to hear rosy pictures that do not reflect reality. I think that our members in the financial community have cited their concerns about this budget and that should be acknowledged.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I now recognize the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to stand and have a few words on some of this. I understand, because being on both sides, this side as the Opposition and government side on several occasions, even back in Clyde Wells days when we thought the government was going to go bankrupt at the time, back in the '90s, it is a balancing act that we all have to try to find our way through.

I would argue, again, that some of the people that you hear say – and I heard the minister saying that we can build because we have an asset there and we don't mind borrowing for capital because we have an asset.

P. LANE: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

P. LANE: Who's going to buy the Team Gushue?

E. JOYCE: Who's going to buy the Team Gushue Highway?

But you can understand the infrastructure, I can understand it, but here's what I hear from people: If you're going to build infrastructure, you do it because you need it. You look at the school that was built up in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, that was never recommended. I'm just saying, Minister, this is the stuff that you hear.

All of a sudden, I want this, forget if you need it, forget if you can afford it, we're just going to do it. I tell you this is the kind of stuff that people, ordinary people, bring up because when it's in the media they said: Well, what did they do that for? They didn't need that.

When it came out in the media the school board writing and saying: Where did this come from? The deputy minister never replied to it because the problem with it is that it never went through the school board. If it was needed, it should go through the process, but when you just take it and say, okay – it's almost like Monopoly money. I want this. Okay. Then you add to the debt, even though, do you really need it? The school board said we don't.

These are the kind of issues that are brought up. I'll tell you another issue that is brought up to me from the people who know about it. There are 17 Members in Cabinet. Here is Newfoundland and Labrador we got 17 people in Cabinet, and people recognize that.

P. LANE: It's almost half the House.

E. JOYCE: Almost half of the House is in Cabinet. You take out the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, there's almost half the House in Cabinet. People recognize that – people really recognize that.

So here we are saying on one end that we got to watch out for our dollars and telling people you can't have this part, you can't have that part, you can't do this; yet you put 17 people in Cabinet. There are divisions over there that was never ever a ministry – never.

P. LANE: Plus, the Premier's office.

E. JOYCE: The Premier's office out in Central.

In actual fact, Len Simms, I think, had a Premier's office in 1990. I went out and closed it down because it wasn't being used. I was actually working with Clyde Wells. I went out and we actually shut down the office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: I'll say to the minister, I actually went out there and actually got rid of the furniture and shut it down then, yeah. That is a fact.

So is it being used? I'm not out there. I'm hearing that it's not being used a lot, but that's the kind of thing that a government does. That's the kind of situation, Mr. Chair, these sole sources.

I heard the Member for Burgeo - La Poile speak today about the issues, and they're faced on both sides. That is true. That is 100 per cent true, but here is what happened. All these issues were always there but they were never addressed for a number of years because they weren't the big, high-profile issues that may get some media attention. That is the issue that the government faced because these issues always were there. There's no doubt, I say to the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, they were here when we were in Opposition in 2011, some of these issues.

They're going to be there, whoever forms the next government. But the problem with it is that for four or five years they let it get too big instead of dealing with it.

I'll give you an example. I brought up in this House several times about the housing in Corner Brook, no housing. I brought it up many times. And it's great that there are going to be 50 units built, that's great. But it's not enough. There are over 300 on the wait-list – there are over 300 on the wait-list.

So I understand, I say to the minister and the government, yes, these issues are going to be there, but we have to try to manage the issues. That is what people are bringing to my attention, is that if there is a major housing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Just a little too much chatter on the tea here. Let's just listen to the Member here.

Thank you.

E. JOYCE: I understand that the minister's over there agreeing with me on it. Just let me finish, then you can stand up and just thank me for bringing up these issues. I understand that.

I just say to the Minister of Health, I don't know how true this is, but this is the kind of thing that gets out there. Once it gets out there, that's when people get upset.

Cataracts: Last year, it was committed they were going to have 500 cataract surgeries on a go-forward basis. From my understanding from people – and I don't know if it's true, the minister can answer this or not – that now they're gone back to 2019 levels. There's going to be another wait-list starting this year. Yet, there was a commitment made by government, 500 on a go-forward basis.

This is the kind of thing that you cause issues for people of the province that should never be caused, because then people lose confidence in government. No matter what government it was, if you make a commitment, you stick to it. If you can't stick to it, stand up and say why you can't do it.

But that's my understanding from patients in Corner Brook, is that right now they may be gone on a wait-list again, which we shouldn't have. It's saving the government money. There was a commitment made on a go-forward basis so there will never be a wait-list in Western Newfoundland for cataract surgeries. It's been done all across Canada, this form.

So I'll let the minister respond to that if he wants to later or to say the information that I'm receiving from the patients is not correct, I look forward to it, but that's what I've been told.

P. LANE: What are they doing on this end of her? Same thing?

E. JOYCE: Same thing on this end of her. I think, same thing, yeah. Same thing, they're moving them back.

One of the biggest things that I'm going to bring up is the roads. I said it before and I'll say it again, is that we need somehow to make sure our roads are safe. I know I'm harping on the minister on it, and I should because I'm doing it on behalf of the people. What I'm doing now, on a regular basis, I'm going to bring up concerns on the roads and what parts. The minister is well aware of it because there are at least 30 or 40 letters.

I say to the minister, this is something that I'm talking about: safety. I really am. I mean, I always gave you high praise, and I still do. I think you're a great guy; I really do. But when I've got to raise an issue on the roads, this is my job – this is my job. I will never attack you personally. I will never, if we are into a group, never say a word about it. This is my place here to bring up these issues, and I will do it. I've got a habit once I feel that I'm right on something, is that I'm going to bring it up on behalf of the constituents.

I know a few other ministers over there that I deal with. Some, you don't even hear from, but you know that the district is being treated like other districts. That's the way it should be. I understand the politics of it all. I'm going to bring up Crown Lands for a second. I say to the minister, Crown Lands is one issue that a lot of people are frustrated with. You can walk into Motor Registration now, get your car. You can walk up to Finance, pay your bill. But you still can't walk into Crown Lands.

I say to the minister, and I have numerous times, people still find it hard to get through to arrange an appointment. Everybody don't have a computer. If you went up to that door today in Corner Brook, and if someone got an issue with something, they can't just get someone down or go in to see someone to get it straightened up. They're told to go back, go online. If you haven't got a computer, you've got to find someone to arrange an appointment three or four weeks down the road. Maybe the question could be resolved within a minute, two minutes, the process – two or three minutes.

That is something that's a lot of frustration, I can tell you, Minister. If there's any way whatsoever that you could fix that, it would save a lot of anxiety by a lot of people around trying to get into Crown Lands to see someone. It could be as simple as: Is there anything else I need to do with this application? That is very frustrating to a lot of people, and I just bring it to your attention.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Now I'll recognize the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.

I didn't mean to be disrespectful, standing while the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands was speaking because, in actual fact, I really enjoy what he said. I was listening intently to what he said and he made very good points. I think a lot of times, the chatter in the room, in the House of Assembly, gets so loud that we have difficulty hearing good points made.

Bill 73, for the people listening at home in my district, really, it's about authorizing the ability to borrow money. “… sums of money required for the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make good, in whole or in part, actual or estimated deficiencies,” – deficiencies, that's gaps – “between provincial revenue and expenditures.”

So this bill is very, very important. But also it gives us the ability on this side in the House of Assembly, the Opposition, to actually talk about whether or not we support this bill, borrowing more monies and how the government spends monies. That point's been made back and forth, and also it gives the Members the ability to talk a little bit about some of their concerns for their district, about what money should be spent on. Sometimes it can get a bit heated, Bill 73.

I just want to go back; I know there's a point of order, and I know the Speaker is going back and doing a ruling, but what was talked about yesterday, when the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi actually stood up and he talked about democracy. I was there listening, and I wrote down what he said. When he was talking about the fact that the Official Opposition and the Third Party and the independent Members weren't present, when the budget was being read out by the Finance Minister, we weren't sitting in the House of Assembly.

Now, in the point of order, the Member from Humber - Bay of Islands makes the point that you can't be doing that. You shouldn't be doing that. It's about integrity and respect and following the rules of the House of Assembly. But in actual fact, I just want to quote – because I wrote it down, and my handwriting – I was kind of upset so my hand was shaking – and the Member said: It was a direct assault on our parliamentary democracy, aided – and I think I wrote abetted – by the other side. The other side is us.

So basically, we contributed to an attack on parliamentary democracy. To me, that's a farce, and I'm really, really glad the point of order was raised. Because we come into the House of Assembly and what we try to do is try to look at what's needed in our districts, what's need for the province and we know about the greater good. I talk about a lot about the greater good.

But, in actual fact, to have it said to get a road, you have to have a big project, like a mine project or a big corporation, some economic generating entity. That's the only way you'll get a road. When you look in my district there is no road, but what do we have in out district? We have Voisey's Bay; there was no road built to facilitate and support Voisey's Bay. There were no power lines put in to support Voisey's Bay. And that was mentioned in the House of Assembly, about Voisey's Bay being on diesel and the impacts that it has and the cost.

Nothing is coming to my district. I talk about the burden. I'm going to vote on this approval for the government to borrow money, and we talk about decade after decade spending money. In my district, we're not getting the bare minimum.

And where were we? I don't mind saying where I was. I watched the Minister of Finance, basically, read her Budget Speech. I was doing it virtually. I wasn't falling down on my duties as an MHA. I was looking for a little scrap of something for my district, to help with the things I have been raising through petitions and through Question Period.

I was looking for something to do to offset the Liberal decision to remove the freight service – the freight boat, as we call it – from the Island up to Northern Labrador. That freight service existed until they build a road into Goose Bay, joining the South Coast and Goose Bay, Lake Melville, over to Labrador West.

So when we look at authorizing the borrowing of money and I hear oh, you've got to have some kind of project like a mine or a large business; but, in actual fact, in my district, we already have that. People in Northern Labrador, we know where Voisey's Bay is. We know about the nickel and the copper and the milling that comes out of Voisey's Bay. We know that, in actual fact, there's been years when the revenue generated from Voisey's Bay was more than the offshore. So we know how much money that Voisey's Bay is contributing.

The only way that project could go ahead was with the co-operation and the support of the Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut Government because we had shut down that project during exploration, when they started construction and they started building roads without having the proper permits in place, without having the proper commitment for environmental protection. So we talk about that. For me, it's really, really difficult.

Also, who was present? We respected the fishers. Do you know what I mean? A direct assault on democracy. But I got to tell you, I grew up in the fishery. I grew up in the small town of Makkovik. We had the fish plant and my nephews continue to fish with a longliner, shrimp, turbot, halibut – not, sorry, grenadier, all of these fish that we could harvest that wasn't cod, we continue to fish.

I got to tell you, when you go out on the sea, you actually take your life into your hands. It is a serious thing and every fisher knows that. Every person who has a loved one in the fishery knows that. We look at how the fishery is eroded decade after decade. What I saw as a young person growing up in high school, the way I summed it up was looking at it from Joey Smallwood onward, is that we were ashamed. We were ashamed of the fishermen. We wanted to be like Alberta with the cowboy boots and the big cars and the hats. We wanted to be something more, we thought. I saw it.

A fishermen: What does a fishermen do? He works hard all day. He's got calloused hands; he stinks of fish and he goes out in his boat to get the fish. Now we've progressed to longliners, but back in the day, the fishery was built on the small boats and we gave that away.

We've just got to look to Europe. We won't borrow money. We look to Europe and how they respect their fisherpeople, how they build economies and communities and has a lot of infrastructure that's funded by the fishery, the profit from the fishery. But what did we do? No, to get ahead, we undermined all that.

I have to tell you, I'm talking about fish plant workers. I went to work in the fish plant when I was 14 years old and I had so much respect for the men and women that I worked side by side with, especially the older ones who had arthritis in their hands, standing on cement floors. So everybody who works in the fishery has my respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: And I tell you it's not a direct assault on parliamentary democracy.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member's time has expired.

Thank you very much.

I now recognize the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

It's certainly a pleasure to get up and represent the District of Ferryland and the people who elected me to come in here and I'll certainly do that.

I'll just touch on a couple of points that happened yesterday and since last week. I spoke to the Minister of Health last week and yesterday he claimed that it's being political by asking those questions. Last Thursday, I had those questions ready and I didn't ask them. I said if I can get this solved, I'm not going to ask these questions.

I'm the least political fellow in here, in my mind, I'm the least political person, because I tell you, I don't want to make it political, but when you get up here and – I put those questions off and I didn't want to ask those. I didn't want to ask him last week. If I could solve that problem and we can get it solved, if you could solve it, I'd be happy with that, really happy.

So then we go through the weekend, I'm getting emails and there's no nurse practitioner in the area. What would you do if you were in my position as an MHA in my district? I have to ask those questions. It's not political. I have to ask them, that's what they're asking me to do. That's my job.

To claim it to be political. No, I certainly didn't appreciate that. That's not the way it was. I held those questions off, and you didn't know that. As the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology said, there are facts around it. I just wanted to put that out there because that's the way it was.

Last week, I said, no hold off on those questions. If this minister can fix this, then I'd appreciate that and I wouldn't ask, but then when it's not fixed on Monday and we're still working on Tuesday. These people are after me and I have to ask these questions, that's my job. So that's where it is and I wanted to put that out there, just so that the minister would know that.

I do appreciate that we're still working on it and we'll hopefully get to solve it, but that's where it's to. I just wanted to put that point out there. Every issue in here is probably the same way. So I just wanted to put that out there, that's where it's to. I called our chief of staff and I held those questions because I thought we'd get it fixed by the weekend because people are waiting. They need to get that service and that's my job to do that. So I'm going to do that until I'm finished. That's just the way it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Again, the Minister of Transportation gets up and speaks, and I know the Chair had said we're not going to speak on it, but I was out there and didn't cross those lines as well. I had a niece and nephew out on the line and I tell them, I said: B'y, don't go getting yourself in trouble out on that line, don't go getting arrested. That's going to show up for the rest of your life. You got a right to protest, you got a right to do it, we got a right.

I had a lot of people from my district out there, I have to represent them as well, it's both sides. So for you to get up and say that we should come in here. Yes, I know what my job is and I'm going to show up every day that I get here, but we have things we got to do. Being political is coming in announcing the budget and calling Division in the House when there was no one else there. That, to me, is political.

To me, I'm looking at that saying: B'y, really, we got to do that? Why have we got to go there and do that? That, to me, is totally wrong to get up and call Division. Anyway, I'm not going to harp on it anymore. I didn't come in here to harp on that, but there are surrounding circumstances that I want to put out there of why we do it.

We sat there that day wondering if we're going to come in here or wondering if we're going to go out there by the protest line. I got people out there, like I said, relatives out there and it's important that I'm representing those people. I have a job to do and that's what we decided was best. So to come in here and criticize us for not coming in, I think is wrong on the minister as well. I just wanted to put that out there.

I will compliment a couple of ministers here as well. I have been, again, dealing with the Department of Health and dealing with the gentlemen from Industry – let me get it right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Energy and Technology.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Industry, Energy and Technology, yeah.

I called him about a person that was in my district that burns wood in his household. He had an oil furnace but over the years – he's 79 or 80 years old and he couldn't afford to buy oil. He was obviously cutting wood. I know people that gave him some wood to help him through. He is 79, 80 years old and he couldn't afford to buy the oil, or he elected not to if he could burn wood.

Now, when this oil to electric comes along, you got to have receipts showing that you burned so many litres per year over the last couple of years. I spoke to the minister, and I give him full credit, we worked it through – it's not done yet, but the gentleman is now going to get what he wanted to get, which would be the oil to electric and be able to get the mini split or the heat pump or whatever he is going to try to get in his household.

The minister worked with us with that. That's what our job is, to represent our district and we do that, and he did a good job. I don't mind saying that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: The Environment Minister.

L. O'DRISCOLL: The Environment Minister it was, yes. So, you know, he did a good job.

Again, I'll speak to the Minister of Transportation, I'm not going to use all my time today, but we met, as I said before, in the depo. We've done some good stuff in our district, we certainly appreciate it, whether it be guardrails, the road signs are going up, some ditching. I continue to reach out to the superintendent in my district, which I have a good rapport with, and they really do a good job. They've cleaned up the area as well.

As the Member for Burgeo - La Poile had said, we do have massive issues in our province. There's no question about it. Yes, there are good things in this budget and, yes, we'd like to see some more and there's only so much money to go around. We understand all that.

We do hear it on the ground from the people, again, with oil that people only got oil; can they afford to change over? No, probably not. It's going to cost them $10,000 to $15,000. If they can't afford to put oil in their furnace, how can they afford to change over their house to put electrical units in it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: It's not easy. So that's what we hear.

Again, he helped out on another issue last year that a lady would be able to get a loan and able to repay it. But they made those changes, so you've got to work with people on that. I would say, in general for me, most times I call most of the ministers, whether it be COVID and there were cheques that needed to be issued or re-issued, we got lots of great help. There's no doubt about it. We do have those things that we certainly speak to the ministers and, you know, they do the best they can.

Sometimes when you call and they don't message you back or don't call you, we wouldn't be calling if it wasn't – I'm not saying a dire need but something that needs to happen in the next week or two, and that's the stuff that we really, really need to be on. Now, we're messaging you; all we asked is put us on to the right person that we can help speed this up. That's what we're trying to do. That's our job and you do it very well – most people do, but other people they just don't answer these questions.

We need to get these people – like when you send an email and it gets forwarded to someone else, that's not the way the job should be. In my opinion, you should answer back and do the best you can to get that answer.

I will touch on a couple of the other things in the district. There are lots of good things going on, as I said, before – lots of good things. We've got a new trail that's opening up in the district as well. It's been open since last year and they did a great job, and I compliment all the people there as well. They went out and done something that they shouldn't have done at one point, but we got that ironed out and we got the trail going. It's going to add a great economic benefit to the people in the Ferryland District, for sure.

Also, speaking to the minister last week, student jobs will be soon coming out or we will be soon getting notice on student jobs and, hopefully, there's more money to be able to get more students employed. We all try to stretch them out as far as we can. I think, last year, it was 16,000 and it's after coming down since I started five years ago.

I am hoping it will come out this week, that these students will be able to start doing interviews or the groups will be able to start doing interviews for these kids to have summer employment. You've got to remember when these kids are working in the summertime, they spend their money back into the economy. They definitely do. Most times, that's their money and they spend it. It helps everybody. So the more students we can have working in the summertime – and I'm sure every person in here, every MHA, is getting calls for summer students. They add to the economy by leaps and bounds, it's unbelievable.

I would like to touch on – this is my last issue. I was at a funeral yesterday and we have a gentleman in Witless Bay that died, Mikie Cahill, he's called. Some of the stuff I heard at his wake and at the funeral, what he added to the community was unbelievable. He would go out fishing and be giving fish away to the elders in the community that people never knew what he was doing. He just did that on his own accord.

He organized the Kinsmen. I think he helped organize the arena. He was a great gentleman in the Town of Witless Bay and added so much to the community and loved to see everybody do better. So I'd like to pass on my condolences to his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I now recognize the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: The minister is going to take a minute –

CHAIR: No, that's okay.

J. DWYER: Are you sure?

CHAIR: Yes.

J. DWYER: I wasn't expecting to go. Only because I was called, I stood. I wasn't standing; you stood before me. Okay, sorry about that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the acknowledgement on behalf of the people of Placentia West - Bellevue because, the same as any other part of the province, there are issues in our district, no different than any other part of the province. But again, I will say to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that it's not easy for your department to come up with a budget; we know that. Like I said, there are some things in the budget that we do agree with. There are some things that we necessarily would like to see some improvements.

The one thing I want to touch on right away is housing. That is a big issue and it's causing so many other systemic issues on the Burin Peninsula and in my district. When it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and we talk about the oil to electric rebates and all that kind of stuff, it's incumbent on us to make sure that we see a fulsome picture of the whole story.

The one thing that I'd like to know is how many of our Newfoundland and Labrador Housing assets have transitioned from oil to electric, if that's indeed where we're going. I mean if we want to change the economy, I would argue that we should change from oil to gas, because then you need to get new equipment as well. Gas is something we have in good reserve.

If we're transitioning people from oil to electric, I want people out there to understand that right now the reason why we're being asked to go from oil to electric is because of the carbon tax and how astronomically we've kind of put a black eye on the oil industry. So that's the reason why we're being asked to go from oil to electric.

What's going to happen, when we get people transitioned over to all this electricity and we haven't added anything else to the grid, just from an economic standpoint, doesn't that mean that electricity rates are going to go up because of supply and demand? That's just common sense.

I don't understand, why would you make one industry so dirty and make another industry so clean, but then crap on the crowd over here because we brought Muskrat Falls on to the fold in order to make a greener economy toward the country of Canada. So I think that we're doing our share per capita, as we always have in the country of Canada since 1949, in our 75th year.

So when we look at that, that's one side of it is this oil to electric, which I don't totally disagree with. As long as we're going to put some more electricity on the grid, then that might be a plausible answer. But one thing we do know is that we do have gas reserves that are significant. There are actually more gas reserves than there are oil reserves, and we see the revenue that we're making from oil. So why wouldn't we help our economy by finding ways to explore and capture the gas that we have? I think that LNG is something that we should really be looking into because it is a good way to transition as opposed to using a light switch to turn off one economy and start a green economy.

So if we could take care of that first, maybe then we can talk about building new assets to house our people, because we know we have an aging demographic.

I believe right now the average age on the Burin Peninsula is about 55 years old, which is not going down any time soon, but we have to look at these different issues. As our demographic ages, we know that they're going to be expecting to attach to our health care system to stay healthy and get the help that they need, whether these are things that come up or they're hereditary or whatever. But it's incumbent on us as the government looking after the public coffers to make sure that these people are taken care of.

So when we talk about adding a billion dollars, which is a big number, and it's hard to talk in lay terms when you're talking billions of dollars, but we just turned around and we said we're working on the social determinants of health, but are we improving our health care system by spending the amount of money that we are on Teladoc?

At the end of the day, the last time I checked, people in my district are not able to utilize this service for the simple fact they have no Wi-Fi service and no cell service. So I think we've got to stop putting the cart before the horse and stop talking about the metro area and the rural area in the same light, because they need two different umbrellas. Because while it's not raining as hard in St. John's, it might not need as big of an umbrella, but rural Newfoundland needs a massive umbrella, for the simple fact that it's hurting.

It's our fishery, everything that we're doing right now is not improving our economy; it's taking away more money from the pockets of the people that we represent. When we talk about seniors and we turn around and we index them to 5 per cent, and already the inflation rate is at 5.2 per cent, we've done nothing for them.

That's the problem, is that we're not recognizing this well ahead of the time that it takes to do it. So, to me, the biggest thing that we can take care of here now, in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the wonderful people that we all represent, is that we really need to nail down this Wi-Fi and cell service.

We turn around and Digital Government and Service NL are turning around and everything is online. You get your licence online and you get your hunting licence online or you renew your plates or what have you. Everything is done online.

Not everybody was trained to be online, for starters, but if you don't have the capability to get online, why would you train yourself to be online? We'