Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 11 March 2019 (48th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 54)
2019-03-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
March 11, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 54
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome all the Members back to another week in the House of Assembly.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today for Members'
statements, we will hear from the hon. Members from the Districts of Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's - Humber, St. John's Centre,
and Baie Verte - Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate the local service district of Francois for wining the
Cruise Vision award presented by Cruise Newfoundland and Labrador at the HNL
gala earlier this year. The award was presented in recognition of Francois'
commitment to the provincial cruise industry and their contribution to growth of
the sector in our province.
Fran-sway, or Francois, a true gem on our sunny South Coast, is a frequent stop
by many cruise ships and was one of only three stops in Newfoundland and
Labrador by the C3 Exploration Cruise in celebration of Canada's 150 birthday.
Passengers are provided guided tours and are more than delighted by the
open-hearted traditional kitchen party alive with fabulous local musicians,
delicious food and captivating storytelling.
Occupied
since the 1700s, it is incredible how this community of about 70 residents come
together to offer their visitors lasting memories of an enchanting voyage and a
unique taste of Newfoundland and Labrador. Cruise passengers are certainly awed
by the outport's 600-foot high waterfall in the community's centre and charming
wooden walkways that are surpassed only by the warmth and welcome of its
residents.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Francois for its humongous success in
this sector.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
January 7, I had the pleasure to attend the opening ceremony of the new
inclusive squash program in Conception Bay South.
Conception Bay South became the first town in Canada to adopt an inclusive
squash program providing people with physical, emotional or intellectual
disabilities the opportunity to play the sport. Organizers are calling this a
global first.
This
program was spearheaded by Squash Newfoundland's past-president and squash
pioneer, Eric Hart, from Conception Bay South. Ms. Lolly Gillen, the former
president of Squash Canada and now an international delegate for the game has
been instrumental in helping Eric set up his inclusive squash program. She has
reached out around the world to organizations from Hong Kong to Australia to
learn that many countries thought about doing this, but none have done it to
date.
This
program has a long-term goal of taking this initiative across Canada. In
addition to this, the US, Norway and Australia has asked for this inclusive
squash program model. They are hopeful this program could one day be part of the
Paralympic Games.
Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate Eric Hart for his continued dedication and achievements
and ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing his contribution to our
community and also to the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, last fall I rose
in this House to congratulate Mrs. Freda Gillis as she celebrated her 108th
birthday. She was the oldest citizen of our province. Today, with sadness, I
rise to inform the House of Mrs. Gillis's passing earlier this year.
Freda
was born in Cartyville on the West Coast and has seen many changes and many
historic events in her lifetime. She witnessed veterans returning from both
World War I and World War II, as well as the Great Depression.
Mrs.
Gillis also had many wonderful events in her own life. She married Tommy Gillis
in 1931 and they had five children. In the 1950s, they started a business
together which employed many people in the area she lived.
Over the
last five years, I had a number of opportunities to speak with Freda and was
always impressed by her active mind, her strong will and her sharp wit. Her
legacy lives on in the impact she has had on members of her family and all those
she came in contact with. She is truly an example of a life well lived.
I ask
all Members of the House to join me in celebrating the life of Freda Gillis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Megan Gail Coles has done it again. Her newest
creation: Small Game Hunting at the Local
Coward Gun Club has hit the bookstores to critical acclaim. Megan grew up in
Savage Cove on the Great Northern Peninsula and makes St. John's Centre her
home. She dedicated her latest book to the beautiful, vicious island that makes
and unmakes us, and warns, this might hurt a bit. Be brave.
And the bravery she speaks of is her own, as a
courageous feminist writer who pushes us all to really see what is happening
around us and to challenge the systems and attitudes that keep us down.
But make no mistake, nothing is keeping Megan Gail
Coles down. Her star is rising and we get to ride along. Buy this book.
Brava Megan Gail Coles!
Thank you vey much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to highlight an amazing young athlete from my district who
has been turning the heads of hockey scouts.
At just 14, Abby Clarke from Springdale left home to
pursue an education through hockey at Rothesay Netherwood School in New
Brunswick. From there, a scholarship led her to Alberta's Warner Hockey School
in the JWHL. She finished her graduating year playing for the Edge School for
athletes in Calgary.
In 2014, Abby committed to an athletic scholarship at
St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Named team MVP 2017-2018 and Academic
All-Canadian the same year. At 21, she attended Team Canada Women's pre-Olympic
camp; 2018-2019 has been a career year for the amazing goaltender being named
university sports national athlete of the week in early January. Her numbers:
goal against average 1.05, and save percentage of 0.961 are the best in the
entire nation amongst CIS goalies with 10 or more appearances. She was named
playoff MVP in the AUS and will compete later this week in university sports
national.
I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in wishing Abby
much success as she pursues her love of hockey.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to announce a program that uses the
principles of restorative justice to give offenders an alternative to the
traditional court process. The need for this type of program was identified by
participants of justice summits held across the province over the last two
years.
These forums brought together key players of the
criminal justice system including representatives from every level of court,
federal and provincial corrections, police, representatives across all divisions
of the Department of Justice and Public Safety, members of the legal community,
Indigenous groups and community organizations, who identified issues and
suggested possible solutions for improvement. One of the top issues identified
was the lack of
alternatives, which will be addressed by the introduction of an adult diversion
program.
Mr.
Speaker, the goal of the program is to provide an effective and timely response
to the offender's behaviour, encourage offenders to acknowledge and repair harm
caused to the victim and provide an opportunity for the victim to participate in
the process. Alternative measures can include counselling, a letter of apology,
community service or even a charitable donation. The program has seen success in
multiple jurisdictions across the country and is being piloted in this province
through Provincial Courts in Stephenville and Corner Brook.
addition to adult diversion, the department is working on other actions to
address issues identified at the justice summits, which can be found in the
action plan posted to the department's website.
Mr.
Speaker, we recognize there is still work to be done, but I am proud of the
initiatives that have been undertaken to improve and enhance the justice system
in the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for a copy of his statement. I think the minister would agree that
the more people diverted from HMP, the better.
Last
April, the House passed a resolution urging government to explore the benefits
of adopting restorative justice practices in the province, in consultation with
outside organizations and Indigenous groups. In recent justice summits around
the province, participants expressed concern about the lack of diversion and
restorative justice resources and programs. They called on the province to learn
from restorative justice models used by Indigenous peoples.
For
years, people have been calling for action and it's important to see this
happening. We look forward to hearing positive reports.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. I applaud this initiative by the Ministry of Justice and Public
Safety. Incarceration should be our last resort. Our goal should always be
restorative justice and to keep people out of our correctional facilities as
much as possible. And our priority should be rehabilitation and prevention.
In light
of this, another huge hurdle our justice system must tackle is the growing
number of people incarcerated who are on remand. It is time the minister
consider and develop alternative measures to handle remands in the community. It
is at a crisis point and it is the largest contributing factor to overcrowding
in our prisons and our lock-ups.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to take this opportunity to talk about yet another way our government is
supporting Newfoundland and Labrador's agricultural industry.
I think
we can all very much agree that safety on the farm is very, very important. And
while farming in and of itself can be dangerous, I'm very proud to say that all
the farms that I have visited implement very strict measures to mitigate the
risks.
Canadian
Agricultural Safety Week, which is held from March 10 to 16 this year, is an
annual public campaign focused on the importance of safe agriculture. The aim of
the campaign is to empower farmers and the farming community to build, grow and
lead the industry in safety and sustainability.
Mr.
Speaker, empowering new and current farmers is important to this government.
It's the reason we implemented the Agriculture Sector Work Plan and committed to
increasing food self-sufficiency in Newfoundland and Labrador and employment in
the agricultural sector through The Way
Forward .
Through
our Canadian Agricultural Partnership, funding is available to Newfoundland and
Labrador farmers through the Mitigating Agricultural Risks Program to identify
and mitigate on-farm safety risks, including funding for farm safety and
awareness and training.
Mr.
Speaker, my department takes farm safety very seriously. We recognize the
importance of ensuring agribusinesses are a safe workplace for farmers and their
employees.
I want
to congratulate Farm Credit Canada, the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association
and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, along with our homegrown
institutions and organizations, for supporting this initiative which is
supported by the Canadian Agricultural Partnership.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We, too, are pleased to
acknowledge the importance of farm safety as we celebrate Canadian Agricultural
Safety Week.
supporting safe and strong farms across the province and across the country, it
is most important that we realize it is too important to be politicized. This
week serves as a valuable campaign to increase public awareness about the
importance of farm safety and, in doing so, it also highlights the importance of
farms themselves.
Farming
is a dangerous occupation. Not only do farmers and their families have to work
long hours, with various types of machinery and equipment, but they are also
under more pressure as they work to compete globally. For all these reasons and
more, it is important that farmers and their families manage risk and protect
themselves from injury.
I would
like to thank all those involved with this initiative and I would also like to
thank the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture for all it does in
promoting farm safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It's good news that
Newfoundland and Labrador farmers are taking advantage of the federal-provincial
funding to mitigate risks. We know that the incidents of accidents on farms,
especially family farms, are always a major concern.
It's
important that we do everything to protect the people, especially our young
people who are working on farms and looking at starting doing that, and to
ensure that agriculture maintains a good safety reputation.
I'm glad
the minister is recognizing all the associations on the national level. I look
forward to government putting in place more concrete provincial assistance to
help our agricultural sector grow.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
August 31, 2016 the tax exemption on the export of hydropower from Churchill
Falls to Quebec expired.
I would
ask the Premier, how does he explain to the people of the province that while
they groan under over 300 Liberal government imposed tax and fee increases, the
power export to Quebec goes untaxed.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we
know, number one, the comment that's been made by the Tory leader there is when
you talk about fees and so on, they were not new fees. The Tories keep talking
about these things. It's really not the true story as what's been happening
about that time, but what we do understand and what we do know, back in 2016, it
was a much different province than it is today. We've been cleaning up a lot of
the mess that we've been left with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you talk
about taxation of hydro and the 2016 agreement, and when you look at rate
mitigation, we will explore and continue to explore all options that are
available to this province to keep electricity rates down.
This is
not a copy-and-paste exercise or a cheap plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
So, Mr. Speaker, I noticed in
the answer nothing stated about the disappearance of the tax exemption and the
opportunity that opens up.
The
disappearance of this tax holiday for Quebec has opened enormous opportunity to
leverage talks with Quebec, aimed at getting a fair and equitable return from
the Upper Churchill resource.
What
action has the Premier taken to grasp this opportunity?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
number one, what I will not do is actually fill in some more blanks that are
glaringly absent from this Crosbie hydro electricity action plan, because it was
a cheap plan. You paid for what you got, I can tell you that: nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
It should have been just a
copy-and-paste exercise from the PUB. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would
say if the PUB had not been kicked out, there would not have been a requirement
for the Crosbie CHEAP plan that we put in place today.
Let's be
very clear, the Leader of the Opposition got exactly what he paid for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I do
remind all Members to not address each other with the personal names. It's their
titles and so on.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition, please.
MR. CROSBIE:
I notice, again, no reference or response being made to the expiry of the tax
exemption on the export of power from the Upper Churchill.
Why
hasn't the Premier educated the public on the disappearance of the Quebec tax
holiday and the opportunity it represents?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
once again, as I said, that on behalf of residents of this province we're going
to explore whatever options we have available to us.
It's
ironic that just a few days ago the Tory Leader was up asking people – that we
need to put the fight in Dwight or the bite in Dwight or something so that we
can actually be doing what other former PC premiers have done and fight Quebec
in areas today, talking about suggesting that myself, as Premier, should be
having discussions with Quebec.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it's like walking on quicksand with this Tory Leader. We don't know
where he's going. He takes his direction from which way the wind is blowing.
Clearly, what we're seeing here now, for the first time in 25 or 26 sessions, we
finally have a Tory Leader asking and concerned about electricity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
It has always been my philosophy to talk first and fight second.
I ask
the hon. Premier: When did he first get a legal opinion on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of
work being done on rate mitigation.
As a
matter of fact, we're the group that called in the PUB, the Public Utilities
Board. As a matter of fact, I would say if you would have left the PUB in place
seven years ago, you wouldn't need a CHEAP plan today. That plan would not have
been required, but maybe at the time.
He could
ask his colleagues – that he's telling me I should be mentoring myself from –
did they actually talk to Quebec about bringing in cheap power from Hydro-Québec
to solve the problem that they thought was going to be in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
As I
said, Mr. Speaker, working with the Department of Natural Resources, working
with the PUB, we will not allow electricity rates and Muskrat Falls to be borne
by ratepayers or taxpayers in this province, and I can assure you we will put a
very credible plan in place to the electorate of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, none of that answers the question, which was when was a legal
opinion first obtained?
Since
the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken to this this morning, I'm going to
ask her for that.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did
note this morning that Crosbie CHEAP plan – that's the name of it, Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member
please do not refer to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh
MS. COADY:
It is the name of the plan.
So it is the name of the plan.
MR. SPEAKER:
Well, I'll remind all
Members, one cannot do indirectly what one is not permitted to do directly,
regardless of the name of the plan, so.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
merely using the name of the plan that the Opposition actually named the plan.
But I
will say this, Mr. Speaker, I noted this morning that the Leader of the
Opposition did stand and give credibility to what this government is doing.
Everything that's in their plan is because of the work that we have done by this
government to fix a problem of their making.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
As is the common practice
with this government –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– first the premier now the
minister have not answered a simple question.
When was
the first legal opinion requested?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could
ask the Member opposite the very same question. He had a plan this morning where
he raised this issue, Mr. Speaker, but I note he did not include it in his plan.
I think that really speaks volumes for what he thinks this discovery can do.
Mr.
Speaker, as with anything that I do in my Department of Natural Resources, we do
seek legal opinion on a variety of issues, one of which, of course, would have
been the changeover in August of 2016 of the rates that were charged from the
Upper Churchill Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, the question was when
the legal opinion was requested.
Mr.
Speaker, it seems plain at this point that the government opposite has slept on
our rights.
When the
Premier had dinner with Premier Legault of Quebec last December: Did the subject
of the expiry of the tax exemption for the Upper Churchill power come up? If
not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have a
frustrated Tory Leader today it seems; very frustrated, I would say.
Mr.
Speaker, we had a meeting with the Premier of Quebec. I think that was widely
publicized. We had a discussion about Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador on
things like mining, the transportation links and so on. It's been a productive
meeting.
As a
matter of fact, we've had productive meetings with the Atlantic Growth Strategy,
just the Friday before last. I'm wondering why the Tory Leader has not even
asked questions about that, how we fill in transmission gaps so that we can
actually help other Atlantic provinces come off coal; therefore, increase the
demand and lower the cost of Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, this government is leaving no stone unturned, doing whatever we can to
keep rates down. We're just not relying on a copy-and-paste exercise from
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Your
time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The question had to do with
whether the issue of the expiry of the tax exemption was discussed with the
premier of Quebec. Again, no answer.
Quebec
Hydro has enormous depth of knowledge and experience in hydro and in negotiating
hydro deals.
Who has
the Premier assembled to be on the correct team that we need to represent us in
talks with one of the most formidable hydro energy companies in the world?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
got a number of people who would work on behalf of our utilities within
Newfoundland and Labrador, but right now, if you're thinking there is a
conversation that's ongoing about megaprojects and so on, we will do whatever it
takes to keep rates down, but only agreements that – we would never do an
agreement where Newfoundland and Labrador is not the beneficiary, Mr. Speaker.
We will never put – and I say this to the Tory Leader right now. We will never
expose people of Newfoundland and Labrador like the administration that you now
lead, the PC administration exposed this province to.
Today,
on Open Line , you were saying it has a
bright future, but I can tell you, Newfoundland and Labrador does have a bright
future but not as a result of the work of the PC government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
I try to follow the
courtesies and rules of the House and address the Premier in the third person –
not in the first person, not in the second person.
I ask
the Premier, in view of the fact he has known since at least August last year
that Muskrat Falls rate increases could be held to zero without new taxes: Why
did he let the public live in fear instead of giving them a full explanation of
how this mitigation could be performed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we first stated
talking about rates and the impact of Muskrat Falls on this province back in
2012 while the Leader of the PC Party was actually trying to do some work in
theatre. We were working in this theatre on behalf of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. As a matter of fact, the longest filibuster in the history of this
province was held right here when I was sitting right there trying to stop this
project and the impact that it would have on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We did
not support it; you're party did, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, no answer.
So I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources; I ask her the same question: Why was an
explanation not given to the public as to how the object of not affecting their
power rates through the advent online of Muskrat Falls, given at least from last
August?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find
it troubling that the Member opposite does not know that this government has
been out speaking about rate increases at Muskrat Falls for a number of years,
talking about how we have a plan in place. It was in the budget, I believe, Mr.
Speaker, of 2017 that we were going to put $200 million toward rate management
and rate mitigation. And then thereafter, on multiple occasions, I was speaking
to the public about how it was serious, it was difficult, but it is not
impossible for us to ensure that we keep rates as low as possible.
Mr.
Speaker, in comparison, the former PC administration, when they accepted the
Muskrat Falls Project, told the people of this province they were going to owe
15 cents –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Your
time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The Minister of Natural
Resources told the press last week that the government would disclose their rate
mitigation plan before the next election.
Why are
you sitting on it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, this is very,
very troubling, I can tell you. We're not sitting on any plan. We have been
methodical, we have been diligent, first, in getting Muskrat Falls under control
– something of which they were not able to do at all.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we've been very clear to the people of this province that
we are working on a plan that will ensure that the rates of this province do not
double, which it would have under the PC plan for Muskrat Falls.
I have
said that there are three ways in which we are going to do it. We're going to
raise revenue, we're going to lower cost and we're going to manage the mortgage,
Mr. Speaker. I have given examples of each of those things under those headings.
The people of the province know we have a plan, and they know we're going to get
this right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Well, I guess that's a pretty
good admission there still is no plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, there has been
much criticism of the government's decision last week to engage in further
consultations on banning single-use plastic bags in the province.
Last
month, the minister had said that a decision on the ban was coming within weeks.
Today, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is promoting a day of action to
ban the bag.
Minister, why are you dragging your heels?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody
is dragging their heels. All we're doing is doing things right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Which came out of the meeting
last September, of which MNL was a part of and other stakeholders – one of the
recommendations coming out of that meeting was to do more consultations, and
we're doing just that, Mr. Speaker.
I tell
you what we're hearing – I'm glad we did it because we're getting a lot of
responses. The biggest response we've ever gotten from an online survey was the
one that we put on last week on banning the bag.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we're doing the right thing and before we make any decision, we'll make
sure that we're going to have all the information that's needed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I would probably suggest that
the expression of interest is more of frustration in their online survey.
The
members of MNL have voted overwhelming to support a ban on single-use plastic
bags in two occasions in 2016. This group represents 275 municipalities and
serves 89 per cent of the province's population.
When
will your government show leadership and commit to introduce a provincially
mandated ban on single-use bags?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, municipalities
in this province have the authority today to ban the bag or to do anything else
that we need to do around the environment. So, there's no reason why it can't be
done.
We know
that there are seven municipalities in this province that have gone that extra
mile and put in bans. What MNL is asking for is a province-wide ban so that they
would not have the responsibility of enforcing such a ban or putting in the
measures.
What
we're doing, Mr. Speaker, today, and we've done for the past week and we will do
until March 27, is to gather that information and to see what we can do to help
a province-wide ban.
Mr.
Speaker, we're not going to do it until we get all the information.
MR. SPEAKER:
Your time has expired.
Thank
you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, last week the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue revealed that the
deal had been struck between Paul Antle and Kiewit on the sale of the former
Marystown Shipyard and that the province has agreed to take on the environmental
liabilities.
Can the
minister confirm this and provide an update?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I think this is
an issue that really needs some clarification. Number one, this is not the
province's shipyard to sell. So, the province is not selling a shipyard. This is
a deal right now that we understand is being structured by two private entities
within our province.
The
environmental indemnity on the Marystown Shipyard goes back to the '60s when the
shipyard was first built. That was owned by the province at the time. In 1997
when Friede Goldman took over the shipyard, then it was the province's liability
and the indemnity got extended and eventually it takes us where we are today.
There was over $7.5 million spent on environmental cleanups by the province on
that shipyard by many administrations, Mr. Speaker.
So, this
is about a shipyard that is not under the ownership of this government that
we're talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on December 5, the minister confirmed in this House that he had
received and was reviewing the consultant's environmental assessment report on
the former shipyard. That was over three months ago. We still haven't seen the
report and we're hearing the deal is done.
Minister, exactly what did the consultant's environmental assessment report on
the former shipyard reveal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
environmental assessment on this will be released. It was about $241,000. The
right thing to do was to prevent the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
exposure, like we've seen in the 2009 expropriation of Abitibi – we've learned a
lesson from that, Mr. Speaker. So the ideal thing here was to actually establish
what the liability – what the limits would be.
Mr.
Speaker, the assessment that's been done by a group of GHD consultants shows
that the environmental liability on that site right now is currently around $1.5
million. The prudent thing to do is take the province off the hook for those
liabilities as quickly as possible. There is $7.5 million already spent on it;
there's about $1.5 million there.
Mr.
Speaker, this is about creating jobs on the Burin Peninsula, supporting the
aquaculture industry. This is what this government is all about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in 2010 remediation of lead paint at this facility was costed at being
over $2 million, yet the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue and the Premier
are now saying the current cleanup is about $1.5 million.
Can you
explain the discrepancy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I already said
there's been $7.5 million that has been spent on environmental cleanups on this
site now. In 2001-2002, that calendar year, there was about $5 million spent.
And in about 2009-2010 there was another $2.5 million that was spent. That was
on lead and asbestos abatement.
In 2002,
it was on tank removals and so on, on that site. And now, for about $400,000,
this would remove the hazardous material on lead and asbestos abatement. Workers
cannot go in that site until this lead and asbestos abatement has concluded. So
no owner can go in there and operate that site without that $400,000 being
spent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister or the Premier confirm if this is the total environmental liability for
the site? What is the total liability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
analysis that's been done, as I said, Mr. Speaker, by GHD suggests – and this
can be publicly released, this information should be publicly available – about
$1.5 million. This is on top of the $7.5 million that was spent by the prior
administration and then spent in 2002 by another administration.
there's a considerable amount of work that's been done already. This would be
about $9 million in total, Mr. Speaker, when this work gets done.
Mr.
Speaker, let's keep in mind, no one can go in there and work on this site until
the environmental risk have been dealt with. There's about $400,000 of lead and
asbestos abatement that must be done as part of workplace health and safety. The
rest would be in the soil removal that would have to be done as part of the
liability.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, can the Premier confirm if this remediation is required to be done
immediately, prior to the sale and prior to the facility becoming operational?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the smart thing
to do is to get rid of these liabilities as quickly as you can. We can work with
the federal government on soil removal. The $400,000 that would have to be spent
on lead and asbestos abatement – these are lead paints and so on – that would
have to be done before any workers can go in there. So this must be done anyway.
So right
now, we would work with the federal government to actually support the removal
of soil, get the site cleaned up, Mr. Speaker, put that shipyard and the workers
on the Burin Peninsula back to work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
The union supports this, Mr.
Speaker. The aquaculture sector needs it. This is about creating jobs in
Newfoundland and Labrador for people, especially those on the Burin Peninsula
with the Marystown Shipyard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this deal is between two private businesses. Other than taking on
environmental liabilities, how else is government involved in this deal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
We're not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, one of the
reasons cited for cancelling the ambulance service for Moores was unsafe and
unwise scheduling of staff.
scheduling is unsafe, why are we waiting until April 6 to end the contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This
issue that arose with Moores has been a long time in the making. I think it's a
useful opportunity here just to reassure the people in the area served by Moores
Ambulance that if they need an ambulance, they call 911 and one will arrive
exactly the same way today as it did a month ago and exactly the same way as it
will after April 6. There may simply be a different logo on the ambulance.
The
money is there for the funding, the funding is secure and the service will
continue to be delivered. With regard to the issues about scheduling, we have
heard the concerns of the union and this was one of the reasons we elected to
act and not wait.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Last
week, the Minister of Fisheries said that they had tremendous success in dealing
with the federal government.
I ask
you again: Have you been able to get a commitment from the federal government
that no surf clam will be removed from Grand Bank?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I think the
objective should be to increase the amount of surf clams that comes into Grand
Bank. What we've had is success in getting in place a $100-million Atlantic
Fisheries Fund.
There
was a decision that was taken by the federal government on surf clams which,
through prudent action on this side of the House, the federal government decided
to withdraw the previous offer to those applicants to the surf clam. We've had
decisions on sea cucumber which were reversed because there was some impact on
the industry.
It is
true, we do not always agree on fisheries issues with our federal counterparts,
but what is abundantly clear and true is that we can speak with them and we can
resolve our differences. We do not always agree, but we certainly can work
together.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis for a very quick question, please.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So I ask you again: Do you
have a commitment from the federal government that no surf clams will be removed
from Grand Bank? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources for a quick response, please.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, the issue of
surf clam reallocation and sharing of surf clams originated back when the PCs
were in government.
The
arrangement that we have been able to achieve is far superior than any
arrangement they were able to achieve because they were able to achieve nothing.
So while
we pay very –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
– close attention, we have
written to the federal government, I've met the federal ministers responsible
for this on several occasions.
What I
can say is our position has been made more clear than their position, which they
never even indicated they had a position until the dying days before the
decision was reversed.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member's time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Today
government, in forming the new Oil and Gas Corporation, has said Nalcor will
continue to own existing oil production equity assets because the revenue
streams from them were factored into Nalcor's long-term plans, but these assets
are to be managed by the new corporation.
I ask
the minister: If the equity revenue is being spent on Nalcor's long-term plans,
where is the money coming from to run the new Oil and Gas Corporation and how
much is it going to cost?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Finally, a sensible question.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
think it's an important question.
As the
Member opposite indicated, we are setting up a new oil and gas Crown corporation
to ensure that we're putting emphasis and development opportunities in growing
our oil and gas opportunity in this province, and I think everyone in the
province agrees that we have a great opportunity in offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The
money from existing (inaudible) will remain within Nalcor, in a holding
corporation, so that Nalcor could continue with its existing plans. Any new
monies for its existing budget for the new Oil and Gas Corporation, of course,
will come from government until such time as they have revenues coming from
their new projects that they're undertaking.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
That's a
very interesting answer. Now, I'm asking the minister to tell us how much money
government is going to have to put into it until it returns money to the people
of the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, this is getting to the heart of one of the reasons why we're
separating out the Oil and Gas Corporation, so that you can have clarity and
certainty and the people of the province understand what the revenue and the
costs are of an oil and gas corporation.
As we
all know in this House, there are monies being spent on seismic work so that we
understand what our opportunity is offshore. There are about 30 people working
with the Oil and Gas Corporation currently that will be transiting to the new
Crown corporation.
So, all
these expenses, Mr. Speaker, there is clarity and certainty around them and, as
we move into new projects, the new revenue from those projects will offset any
cost of the new entity.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So all
the costs are going to be now and, somewhere in the future, money is going to
come in.
Will
this minister be honest with the people and tell us right here and now: How much
revenue are they projecting to come back to the people of this province
somewhere down the road?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
exception to the word: honesty. I have been nothing if not honest and forthright
about the cost of both Nalcor and the cost of the Oil and Gas Corporation. As
I've said in this House, and this House, I understand, was fully supportive of
Advance 2030 , this is so we can focus
on development of the oil and gas industry in this province, Mr. Speaker. I
think it's in the best interest of everybody in this province.
As has
been always, there has been an entity within Nalcor that was responsible for oil
and gas, there have been investments made in offshore – equity investments and
the new corporation will make an investment in the Equinor oil and gas
investment. All that is clear and proven and pointed out to the people of this
province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So all
the assets are staying with Nalcor, who used to spend money on Nalcor Oil and
Gas. The assets are staying with Nalcor, so what exactly is Nalcor going to
spend the people's money on, now that they're keeping those equity assets?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the things likely would be rate mitigation, Mr. Speaker. We are keeping the
equity investments that we have already made within the Oil and Gas Corporation
for the ongoing operations of Nalcor and one of their commitments, which is on
rate management.
We also
know there is a $200 million allocation within the budget that Nalcor needs to
provide to ensure that we manage rates appropriately. We even know from the plan
that the Opposition put forward this morning uses oil and gas revenues from the
investments and equity offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, Mr.
Speaker, there's nothing mysterious here. This is the way the constructs of
Muskrat Falls were developed from having it within Nalcor, and we're going to
continue to have the revenues within Nalcor because of those obligations.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions is over.
Thank
you.
The time
for Oral Questions is over.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Subsection 18(9) of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act requires that: “In the
second week of every session of the House of Assembly and as the need arises,
the speaker shall inform the House of Assembly of the appointments made to the
commission.”
I am
advising the House that the MHA for the District of Topsail - Paradise has been
appointed to the Management Commission effective March 4, 2019.
Thank
you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, the following private
Member's resolution:
WHEREAS
the United Nations has declared 2019 as International Year of Indigenous
Languages; and
WHEREAS
the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has estimated that 40 per cent of
languages spoken around the world are in danger of disappearing; and
WHEREAS
there are more than 17 Indigenous languages across 12 language groups currently
spoken in Canada and it is believed that 75 per cent of these languages are
identified as endangered; and
WHEREAS
Indigenous languages are a fundamental element of our culture and society and
are essential in improving our Indigenous identity;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
officially recognize 2019 as the Year of Indigenous Languages.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 63(3) the private Member's resolution just entered by the
Member for Torngat Mountains shall be the one to be debated this Wednesday.
Further
notices of motion; pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) I hereby give notice that
the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
many students within the province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the Newfoundland school district's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore they're
not qualified for busing; and
WHEREAS
the policy cannot override the safety of our children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6 kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, as usual, this is a petition that comes to the floor of this House
quite often from our side – myself and my colleagues – and it's an issue that we
keep the fight on for.
On this
issue today, I'd like to highlight a specific situation in my own district.
There's some media coverage on it today. It's a lady who has an autistic child
who lives 1.5 kilometres from the school. There's a video that has been out on
it. She was on Open Line or VOCM this
morning talking about it. I've been aware of it since last week. Myself and the
Education critic has been back and forth on this issue.
The
bottom line is the policy needs to be revised. This policy – put whatever people
did in the past, put that aside. Look at it here and now, today. This policy is
outdated. It needs to be changed. Forget about what was and wasn't done in the
past. We have to live in the present, Mr. Speaker. I keep saying that, and I'll
say it again today.
You have
an autistic child. This lady was really stressed about it, and rightfully so.
It's a 25 minute walk. The roads have no sidewalks. You're down a main artery;
the fifth busiest road in the province to get to school. It's not right. It's
something not right. It's fundamentally wrong. And for people, whoever,
whatever, to stand and defend this policy – there's no defending this. This is
indefensible, Mr. Speaker.
Heaven
forbid, if something were to ever happen to one of our children, it would be a
different story. But we can only imply, we can lobby. Government has the power
to make the change. We're in Opposition, we have the ability to lobby
government. It's exactly what we do on a day in, day out basis.
This
policy is outdated. This lady has expressed a lot of concern, and rightfully so.
What parent wouldn't? Outside of even that situation there, Mr. Speaker, all
parents that are faced with this dilemma. There are other families with two
children, one small, one pre-schooler, another one probably in grade 1. They
have no vehicle. They're single parents. They are stressed with trying to get
their child to school as well.
The
measurement from the house, from the driveway to the entrance of school is
wrong. I got a school, if you added on the distance into the school you'd
eliminate a lot of the busing issues. Plus, these courtesy stops are not working
in CBS, because every bus in CBS is at its maximum capacity because it's a
growing area. We need more school buses.
This
policy has to be revisited and redone for the safety or our children, not only
today but into the future.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to try to refrain from going back and talking about what they didn't do
and talk about the fact that we have made significant changes in policy.
Mr.
Speaker, while I have every bit of empathy for individual cases, I cannot speak
specifically of the case the Member opposite mentioned. However, I would like to
tell you, Mr. Speaker, or inform you, that within the policy if there are
children with special needs within the 1.6 kilometres, there is alternate busing
available. I repeat that: Within the 1.6 kilometres, if there are students with
special needs, alternate busing is made available.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in these cases, we address them, we work with the principal, we work
with school board, we work with the parent to ensure that these students get to
school safely.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with, which it is; and
WHEREAS
women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food
items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage
as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we've seen the raise; we will see a raise April 1 in our minimum wage
to $11.40. It will still be one of the lowest in the country. Minimum wages in
Canada range right now from $11.06 to $15. Some provinces actually have reached
$15, but most of the provinces are higher than $11.40.
Alberta's minimum wage is $15, and look at their economy. They've really
rebounded from a very tough few years. BC's is at $13.85 with a plan to reach
$15 by 2021, which is what this petition is calling for, and Ontario's is $14 an
hour.
I'm not
sure why this government believes that our people who are working in the service
sector, our women and our youth, why they deserve poverty wages, why they
deserve to work full-time and still live in poverty. If you're working full-time
in the province, a minimum wage worker makes $23,712. That's it, Mr. Speaker.
And it's not much more than the low income cut-off of $20,952 for St. John's.
In 2014,
we tabled a motion in the House of Assembly to raise the minimum wage to make up
for lost buying power between 2010 and 2014 when minimum wage remained at $10.
After this initial adjustment it could increase with inflation, but instead the
government decided to only raise the rate every year with inflation and not make
up the loss. So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is such a low, low original one, we
will never catch up.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering from
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experience injuries, have not been bathed regularly, not
received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes
the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents
in long-term care and other applicable regional health facilities housing
persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating
conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,
proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the
creation of a specific job position in this facilities for monitoring and
intervention, as required, to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, I have presented this petition now on numerous times, will continue to
do so on behalf of the Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights in this province.
Each time when I raise it, generally the Minister of Health and Community
Services will stand up and he will talk about the fact that government has
invested in new bricks and mortar. He will talk about the fact of how there are
nutritious foods served at this facilities. He will congratulate the staff of
all the health authorities and the nurses and doctors and say what a wonderful
job you're doing and I support you. As if to infer somehow that the people who
are writing this petition, and myself presenting this petition, don't believe
that nurses and doctors and staff are not doing the best they can with what they
have.
That's
not what we're saying. This is not about bricks and mortar. This is not about
whether nutritious food is prepared at these facilities. It's not about people
not doing their job. It's about staffing ratios. It's about ensuring that there
are enough people in these facilities at all times to ensure that seniors,
particularly those suffering from Alzheimer's disease, dementia and so on, to
ensure that they're being taken care of; to ensure that they're being fed; to
ensure that they're not lying in their own waste for extended periods of time;
to ensure that if they're on a ward, that there's someone there to watch them to
make sure they don't hurt themselves or hurt each other, because they can get
confused and sometimes violent and so on.
That's
what it's about, it's about staffing ratios and it's about ensuring that those
staffing ratios are enshrined in legislation as opposed to regulation and
policy, which can be changed at any given time by any given minister or the head
of the health authority or a home. It's saying that these are minimum
requirements. By law, you must have these staffing ratios at all time.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, safe and
affordable housing is a human right. With a safe roof over their head, people
are able to address other challenges; thus reducing financial burdens in health,
justice and child welfare systems.
A rental
subsidy of $800 per month was enforced on September 8, 2008 to pay for modest
apartments that housing was prepared to accept.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to make safe and affordable housing for those who are
most in need a priority and increase the current rental subsidy from $800 a
month.
Mr.
Speaker, basically, we're looking at a segment of our demographics of our
society who are largely on fixed incomes. While every other segment of living
has increased in cost due to natural inflation, this policy is not reflective of
the inflation. We're looking at almost 10 years now without an increase and
seniors, in particular, are most vulnerable. Everything else from our power
bills to our grocery bills, all that has increased, yet they're still expected
to maintain their rental subsidy and anything they would have to top up with it.
As I've
said before in this House, many people had a little, tiny bit of a nest egg
saved for a rainy-day fund and that rainy-day fund is now gone under the past
three or four years of increased taxes and fees; all those things are necessary
for living, increased insurance costs, those things are part of daily living.
Seniors and low-income people are now under stress.
While I
stand to be corrected, as far as I know, the amount of subsidies given out is
going to be less than what is budgeted for and there will be funds returning to
general revenue. Why can't we give those seniors and low-income people a break
and divide it out, with a little bit of an increase?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response, please.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to respond for a moment. I want to say to the people around the province
that safe, stable and affordable housing, we believe, is fundamental to the
social and economic well-being of the people of this province, Mr. Speaker.
There's
a tremendous amount of work happening over in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
in that social entity, Mr. Speaker. Back in the springtime I, along with my
provincial colleagues from across provinces and territories, endorsed a
multilateral framework. We're just about ready to go, Mr. Speaker, on the
bilateral. We've been two years negotiating that, want to get the best deal for
the people of the province, Mr. Speaker, that includes things like rent supp,
that includes things like provincial home repair, that includes things like the
home heating expansion energy program, and all programs that seniors around this
province are availing of.
What I
will say to the hon. Member is we brought in a pilot project with portable rent
supps, Mr. Speaker, that was in listening to the people and what they wanted.
And, we will continue to roll out the programs that are best for the people that
use these programs every day, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
government now requires regional health authorities to strictly enforce a policy
that requires all applicants being assessed to have a physical care need to
qualify for admission to a personal care home. Seniors with issues such as
anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no longer eligible. Many
seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now being denied access.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.
Mr.
Speaker, we've gotten a number of petitions sent to us relevant to this
particular issue and it's coming from seniors themselves, it's coming from
organizations that represent seniors, it's coming from family members, but it's
coming from community leaders also who see the value in not eliminating seniors
making a choice. This choice is about where they would feel most comfortable,
where they could be best cared for, where at the end of the day their anxieties
would be eliminated, where the stresses on themselves, their family and their
community would be lessened, where they could be provided 24-hour care but at a
minimum cost in comparisons to the Home First program, which we all support.
For
those seniors who have the ability from a health point of view, a mobility point
of view, from a mental health point of view, and anxiety point of view to be
able to stay in their homes and avail of the supports that government, or a
regional health authority, or the department could support would be the ideal
situation. But what we find, and we find in discussions, seniors don't
flippantly make a decision that they want to leave the home they've been in for
75, 85, 90 years of life and raised their families and had all the great
memories to leave to go into a personal care home, in most cases with strangers,
without analyzing what's in the best interest of them and their family from a
safety, from a care point of view and from a physical and mental health point of
view.
So,
looking at the fact that seniors are not being able to be given a proper choice,
and that's what this said. We've taken away senior's choice to access services
that were in the best ability for them to be safe in their environment. As I
noted, the Home First program is something that everybody supports but there
also is a cost to it. It doesn't fit for everyone.
We take
into account the wisdom of seniors and we see the value of them, but when we ask
for something that they recommend, that would be enhancing health care and
supports for themselves, we flippantly turn and say: no, policy doesn't allow
for you unless you have a dramatic health issue. It's not about mental health in
this. So we've made a decision here arbitrarily, that physical health is more
important than mental health. I say, and the seniors who signed this and the
families who support this are saying no, they're equal. You have to assess the
impact it has on that particular individual and that family. So we can't put one
above the other, but we do have a process here that should be open to all.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll get to speak to this many times again, but we can't take away
people's choice. We got to be able to offer this to the people here, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I call Orders of the
Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice, that Bill 42, respecting the establishment
of an Oil and Gas Corporation for the province, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 42 entitled,
An Act To Establish An Oil And Gas Corporation For The
Province, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Establish An Oil And Gas Corporation For
The Province.” (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
appreciate the opportunity to open the discussion on
An Act to Establish an Oil
and Gas Corporation for Newfoundland and Labrador.
This act
will create a new Oil and Gas Corporation separate from Nalcor that will ensure
the province maximizes the resource potential in our offshore. This act reflects
the province's commitment to our oil and gas industry and to
Advance 2030 , a plan of growth for
Newfoundland and Labrador oil and gas industry.
The new
Crown corporation would work directly with the Department of Natural Resources
to accelerate growth and opportunities in our petroleum industry, returning
significant value to the people and economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. The
new corporation will drive exploration and will position this province as a
globally-preferred location for oil and gas development.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous opportunities for growth in
offshore oil and gas industry. In less than 7 per cent of our offshore, we have
a combined resource potential of 49.2 billion barrels of oil and 193.8 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. This was analyzed by an independent firm and known to
be true.
We have
over 650 leads and prospects identified to date, eight new entrants in the past
two years alone, and close to $4 billion in recent exploration work commitments.
This past November, the province received record bids for offshore exploration,
totalling $1.38 billion. And the record highest, single bid was worth $621
million, which was from a new entrant, BHP Billiton. This act, and the
establishment of a new Oil and Gas Corporation, will help our province build
upon these successes.
Our
government and oil and gas industry stakeholders are committed to positioning
the province as an internationally-preferred location for oil and gas
exploration and development. This past year, we released
Advance 2030 – A Plan for Growth in the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil
and Gas Industry . Work is progressing to implement the identified actions.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say in the developing of the plan,
Advance 2030 , we engaged with over 150 stakeholders throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador to determine how we can best grow the oil and gas
industry. We know how important it is to Newfoundland and Labrador. How do we
ensure we have the exploration undertaken? How do we ensure growth in our supply
and service industry? How do we ensure our oil and gas industry evolves and
grows into the future?
By 2030,
Mr. Speaker, we envision over 100 new exploration wells drilled. And I can
inform the people of the province, and indeed this House, there are many – there
are, I think, five current applications before the Canada Environmental
Assessment Agency to look at doing exploration offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador.
envision multiple basins, producing over 650,000 barrels of oil equivalent per
day. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the people of the province, right now our
four projects are in one basin, the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. We've already announced
there will be hopefully another – there'd be more work being done, another
project in another basin called the Flemish Pass, Bay du Nord. We know that
Equinor is looking at doing a project there in the Bay du Nord region; we
announced that last year. So, multiple basins producing 650,000 barrels of oil
equivalent per day.
Shorten
time frames from prospectivity to production. Globally, we're seeing the
opportunity from prospectivity, from understanding what the opportunity is
offshore, to production is now being very much shortened. We're seeing that in
Guyana, we're seeing that in Norway, we're seeing that in the UK. We, too, are
working to shorten the time from prospectivity to production. I mean consider it
was about 20 years for Hibernia to come on stream. We're really working to
shorten that. We're seeing a shortened timeline now with regard to Equinor in
the development of the Bay du Nord Project, but we need to get that even
shorter, and that's to the benefit of the people of the province.
We're
looking for direct employment of more than 7,500 people in the province in
operations, and these are really well paying, very important jobs. We're looking
to grow that industry, and of course that's direct jobs. I'm not talking about
all the indirect jobs that the opportunity lies, and a robust innovative, global
supply and service sector. We have a really good supply and service sector in
the province, and now we're looking at growing that. We're also looking at
things like outside of Newfoundland and Labrador and outside of Canada, even,
with our most recent signing of a memorandum of understanding with Guyana, and
of course we're hopeful for a commercial gas production.
Increased exploration, development and production will create new opportunities
for growth in our economy, and this legislation really does focus our efforts on
the oil and gas industry. It focuses what we're doing in terms of the
development of the exploration, and it focuses really the intention of growing
that industry.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, the West White Rose Project is currently under construction,
providing substantial benefits to the province, and in particular in the
Placentia - St. Mary's area and Argentia. It's incredible the amount of activity
that's taking place there.
At the
end of 2018, there were over 2,400 people working on the West White Rose Project
in the province. Now that first oil is expected in 2022, and it provides an
estimate of $3 billion in royalties, equities and taxes over the life of the
field.
mentioned earlier about Equinor and the Flemish Pass development. A framework
agreement with Equinor and its partner, Husky Energy, on the Bay du Nord Project
will open up a new basin, the Flemish Pass, marking the first development in
deepwater. And with first oil expected in 2025, this project will create an
estimated 11,000 person-years of employment over the project's life span,
generating $3.5 billion in government revenues. That's a combination of royalty,
of taxation and, of course, equity and $14 billion in economic activity.
Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry is well positioned for
long-term growth. If you consider our industry produces oil that is 30 per cent
below the global average of greenhouse gas emissions at extraction. I'm going to
say that again, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people in the province don't
realize that and it is pretty remarkable.
The oil
that's produced offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, on average, has about 30 per
cent below global average of greenhouse gas emissions. So, we have very low
carbon per barrel offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. It has lower emission
intensity than the world average and a barrel produced in our province emits, on
average, 12 kilograms of CO 2 equivalent, compared to the world
average of 18 kilograms per barrel.
The
legislation before the House of Assembly today is to establish an oil and gas
corporation with a mandate to support implementation of
Advance 2030: The Way Forward on Oil and Gas . Reporting to the
Minister of Natural Resources, the directly held Crown corporation will be
responsible for managing the province's investments in offshore exploration,
including seismic and related geoscience activities, which are critical, Mr.
Speaker, for our development offshore.
support of local supply chain development, a priority area identified in
Advance 2030 , the corporation will
also work with stakeholders on specific initiatives to enhance supply and
services capabilities and pursue new business opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an enhanced mandate, we feel it's very important and our
discussions around Advance 2030
certainly led us to ensuring that we enhance the opportunity for the supply and
service industry.
Bull Arm
Fabrication will become a subsidiary of the new corporation and will be
responsible for identifying and leveraging new opportunities for the Bull Arm
site. I hear my hon. colleague from the area giving support for the Bull Arm
Fabrication site. It is indeed the largest fabrication site in Atlantic Canada,
certainly a benefit to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
and we are working very hard, through the RFP process now, to look for new
opportunities for that site. A key objective, of course, is to create an
operating environment for that site that focuses on long-term employment and new
supply service business opportunities in the area.
Nalcor
Energy Oil and Gas Inc. will remain a subsidiary of Nalcor Energy, with equity
interest in existing offshore projects, including Hebron at 4.9 per cent, the
Hibernia southern extension at 10 per cent and West White Rose expansion at 5
per cent. This will become a holding corporation.
Existing
staff of Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas Inc. will transition to the new corporation
and will manage the province's existing equity interest under contract. Future
investments in offshore projects, such as the 10 per cent interest in the Bay du
Nord oil project announced in July 2018, will be held and managed by the new
corporation.
shared-services model – and I think this is important, Mr. Speaker; it will be
the first time, I understand, that there will be a shared-services model,
meaning government will provide service to an entity – will also be implemented
in support of The Way Forward
commitment to be a more efficient public service.
I will
now provide an overview of the bill, outlining the mandate, the corporate
governance and the structure of the corporation. It gets a little dry, Mr.
Speaker, but it is indeed an important aspect of the bill that we're debating.
It is a rather robust bill, and I want to kind of go through it clause by clause
so that people have a clear understanding of what we're trying to achieve here.
Section
1 of the bill refers to the naming of the
Oil and Gas Corporation Act . It just refers to the naming and it's generic,
not a trade name – meaning it's a generic name that'll be in the legislation and
that any trade name that we may have, that may be used coming out of our
deliberations, will be applicable but the act will remain, for the
Oil and Gas Corporation Act , generic.
Section 2 provides for the
definitions of the act. These are common
definitions
found in other legislation.
Section
3 points out that the name of the corporation shall be determined by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council but, for the purposes of the act, the corporation
may be referred to as the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
section also specifies that the shares of the corporation will be held by
the Crown, but that the corporation is not an agent of the Crown. In other
words, it will operate at arm's-length from government with an independent board
of directors.
As such,
section 4 states that the Crown is not liable for the actions of the corporation
except when a directive is issued. Sections 5 and 6 speak to the fact that the
Corporations Act applies and outlines
the legal capacity of the corporation.
Section
7 refers to the objects of the corporation. While broad in nature, the objects
provide the flexibility to pursue opportunities identified in
Advance 2030 and required to grow the
oil and gas industry for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Section 8 stipulates the parameters whereby the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
may issue a directive. As shareholder of the corporation, this is a common
shareholder power.
The
general powers of the corporation are outlined in detail in
section 9 as it
relates to the business of the corporation, including commercial contracts and
agreements with project partners in offshore projects, seismic companies and
suppliers of specialized services. Other examples include any investments in
Bull Arm Fabrication to maintain the site and related operations.
Sections
10 through 17 outline the provision for corporate governance and operations to
the board of directors, the term of office, provisions for the chairperson and
CEO, voting rights, bylaws and other provisions. This includes a provision for a
minimum number of independent directors, in line with corporate governance best
practice. The legislation stipulates the corporation must have seven to 11
directors, with three- to five-independent directors, depending on the total
number of directors. The CEO may be appointed to the board as a non-voting
member – I think that's important, Mr. Speaker. There's also a provision for the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint a representative of government to the
board as a non-voting member.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say that I think it's very important to reiterate that the board
of directors will be chosen through an independent appointments process, and we
welcome application for that board from all over the province, and look forward
to moving toward having that board established.
The new
corporation reporting to the directly to the Minister of Natural Resources, both
the new corporation – I'll call it Oil Co. – and the Bull Arm Fabrication Inc.
will require separate boards of directors.
Section
18 provides the board with the authority to appoint staff, but specifically
requires that the policies and guidelines established by Treasury Board apply to
the terms of service and remuneration of employees in the new corporation.
Section 19 refers to the duties of directors and officers, and
section 20
provides details specific to board meetings.
Section
21 includes provisions specific to subsidiaries of the corporation, including
the number of board members and independent directors. The legislation again
stipulates subsidiaries must have five to seven directors with two to three
independent directors, depending on the total number of directors.
It is
our expectation that the CEO of the new corporation will also be the CEO of the
Bull Arm Fabrication. This will reduce costs and assure stronger alignment with
the mandate of the corporation. In legislation, the objects of the Bull Arm
Fabrication will be the same as the new corporation, but Bull Arm Fabrication
will have a more focused mandate inline with the current business activities.
Section
21 also stipulates that Lieutenant-Governor in Council approval is needed for
any share transactions involving a subsidiary. So any share transactions will
require approval by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That means the
government would have to approve any share transactions at all.
Section
22 permits the corporation to enter into agreements that relate to its objects
with other state owned oil and gas companies, such as Equinor which is 67 per
cent state owned. So it permits the corporation to enter into those agreements
because, as we know, Equinor is partially state owned.
Section
23 speaks to the provisions for records of commercially sensitive information.
Additional rights to protect commercial information are required given the
commercial nature of the contracts the corporation requires to conduct its
business. Oil and gas companies would not enter into agreements with a Crown
corporation if there is a possibility that their commercial information was
going to be disclosed.
If you
recall, Mr. Speaker – and I'm sure you do – Chief Justice Wells even made that
comment when he brought into effect the ATIPPA legislation. This
section
outlines the procedures to be followed as it relates to the
Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, the Auditor General Act ,
and the Citizens' Representative Act.
The
corporation will be subject to reporting by the Auditor General as identified in
section
Section
25 identifies the financial year of the corporation as a calendar year, which is
consistent with the private companies the corporation has commercial agreements
with and who also report financials on that basis.
Sections
26 through 31, outline the reporting requirement of the corporation including an
annual budget, annual reports, financial statements and audit provisions. We
want to make sure that there is transparency and accountability for this
corporation.
Provisions for borrowing, loan guarantees, repayment and related provisions are
in sections 32 to 40. Prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would
be required for any borrowing. In other words, government will have a view as to
when the corporation can borrow for any investments.
Section
41 includes provisions specific to establishing a fund for the receipt of
revenues in conducting its business. Financial provisions that apply are
outlined in
section
Section
43 speaks to the requirement to pay dividends as determined by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. And for the sake of those listening, the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council really refers to government. The application of
relevant acts, such as the Labour
Relations Act , is referenced in
section 44.
Exemptions to the Public Procurement Act
section 45 are limited to energy and energy products, where the corporation
or a subsidiary is acting in strategic partnership, joint venture or equity;
investment with other public bodies or private sector entities or for the
purpose of meeting the requirements of a benefit arrangement.
broader oil activities like training will not be subject to public procurement.
That is normal in these types of circumstances, Mr. Speaker. Benefits
arrangements are not in the Public
Procurement Act , so we would have to have that exemption. We need to
acknowledge that. This provision was also in the
Energy Corporation Act .
Section
46 through
section 48 relate to actions, liabilities and offences. Any required
consequential amendments are outlined in sections 49 through
section 52, which
are required to ensure they apply to the corporation. This includes
schedule A
of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 , the
schedule to the
Independent Appointments Commission Act ,
Public Bodies Reporting Act ,
Public Procurement Act and the Public
Sector Compensation Transparency Act .
The Oil
and Gas Corporation Act comes into force on the day of proclamation by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council as per
section 54. Overall, this corporation will
play a lead role in supporting specific priorities identified in
Advance 2030 ; most specifically,
driving exploration and, of course, enhancing the local supply chain. Both are
critical to accelerating growth in our offshore oil and gas industry for the
benefit of the people of the province.
This
means continuing to invest in seismic and geoscience research to attract global
investment in exploration drilling offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. It also
means working with stakeholders to pursue opportunities to enhance our supply
and service capabilities, which creates jobs and business opportunities in our
economy.
These
are exciting times in the oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker, because of the
opportunity offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government, as committed in
Advance 2030 , will leave no stone
unturned, no action not taken, no effort undone to achieve the success of the
industry.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to, as I conclude, just tell the people of the province some
of the things we have been very successful in doing over the last number of
years under the Liberal government. I mentioned some of them in my speaking
notes but I would like to talk a little bit about a lot of the exploration
activity that's been happening.
We've
had, as I said in my notes, a 2018 record call for bids with a new entrant. This
is helping to drive exploration offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said
earlier, 650 leads and prospects. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, when we drill and make
discoveries and can grow our offshore; $3.9 billion, almost $4 billion, has been
committed for exploration; $4 billion will be spent over the next little while,
really looking at what discoveries can be made offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador. There are five operators currently in environmental assessment with
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to conduct exploration drilling.
We have
Advance 2030 ; and I said earlier, we
had 150 stakeholders from all around the province and all around the industry
from – I'm going to call it from labour, from education, from supply and service
industries, from people who are doing the exploration, from people who are
involved in production, all came together to help ensure that we have a solid
opportunity in our oil and gas industry.
mentioned Bay du Nord and I mentioned things that are happening at West White
Rose. There is a lot of opportunity just in those two projects as we move to
production. West White Rose and the Placentia - St. Mary's area is really – the
work that's being carried out is incredible. I only wish that everybody could
see some of the absolute incredible work that the people, that the workforce is
doing.
As you
know, Mr. Speaker, we have about 2,400 people currently involved onsite and
they're doing some incredible work, world-class work to develop that project. We
also know that comes on stream, I think, in 2022. We know right behind that will
be the Bay du Nord production in 2025, but sanctioning will be in 2020.
mentioned the Independent Resource Assessment. This year, we identified 11.7
billion barrels of oil and sixty trillion cubic feet of gas potential in one
area of offshore. I mentioned previously about another – you know, combined
resource in another area of 49.2 billion barrels, and that was in less than 7
per cent of our offshore – less than 7 per cent of our offshore. Through
independent assessment, it looks like there is about 49 billion barrels. I
remind the people of the province that we've only extracted 1.8 billion barrels
to date.
Imagine,
Mr. Speaker, the opportunity in our oil and gas industry when that oil is
actually discovered. We know through seismic that it looks like it's there.
We've had an independent assessment of that and now people are starting to drill
to see if that's available.
We know
that new 3D seismic data, coupled with seabed cores collected by Nalcor and its
partners in the Orphan Basin, has provided scientific evidence of active
petroleum systems in these bed areas, and there will be multiple drilling
activities over the next number of years. We look forward to the results of
those and look forward to continuing to grow our oil and gas sector. We believe
there is great opportunity there.
As I
said, it is lower carbon per barrel than other jurisdiction around the world. We
think there's great benefit to the people of the province, a great opportunity
for same and the development of this Oil and Gas Corporation really does lead us
to ensuring that we have the tools in place to greatly maximize the benefits to
the people of the province.
Thank
you and I look forward to my colleagues in the House debating this important
legislation, to asking the questions they need to ask to ensure that we are
moving forward in the right direction and doing all that we can to maximize the
opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise today to speak to this bill, Bill 42. The minister has taken some time
to go through it and give some indication of the general intent of the bill in
regard to the changes to Nalcor, taking the oil and gas sector, which now sits
within Nalcor – my understanding is, physically, it's not there, under their
main office, but does still report to and into the parent company of Nalcor as a
separate entity. Now, what we're proposing here, is breaking it down and taking
it out.
I guess
one of the things with that and some of the discussions I've had is the question
of why – what is the benefit in doing it? We had a briefing a little while ago –
and I'll go through some of those points and what we learned in that. As we
know, and the minister has alluded to, we look at 6 or 7 per cent of our
offshore from an oil perspective and what we're looking at developing and where
we are with it from exploration, and the reserves are vast indeed.
Within
Nalcor right now you have the Oil and Gas division which certainly oversees
that, is run by the VP, has its own legislation which exists now that it
currently functions under, and all of that exists today. So, the question
becomes, as we go through this, why Bill 42 and why is there a necessity for a
requirement to change the current structure.
When we
went through the briefing, the general consensus was to help realize our
potential in offshore oil and gas development and to support
Advance 2030 , which is the current
government of the day initiative, I guess, directed to the offshore and oil and
gas development, and look at increasing the amount of activity in our offshore
from an exploration point of view and from a production point of view, which
everybody agrees, certainly, that's quite needed.
In 2007,
we had released an energy plan which looked at, from a very extensive point of
view, the whole facets and assets that are related to our energy in this
province and how it will be handled. Oil and gas was certainly one of those and,
out of that, grew the creation of Nalcor to have our non-renewable resources and
our renewable resources connected in that entity, while yet separated through
different corporate identities, would flow up to the main frame of Nalcor and,
within that, hold the assets, hold the revenues, hold the investment
collectively for those renewable and non-renewable resources. And, from that, we
would draw down the wealth that would be generated from it.
What
we're asked today in Bill 42 is to look at, and I guess the reasons given by the
Department of Natural Resources, as I said, to supposedly realize our potential
in offshore oil and gas development, support the government's initiative of
Advance 2030 and, in doing that, it
would be directly tied to the Department of Natural Resources to accelerate the
growth and opportunity of our petroleum industry returning significant value to
the people and economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Currently, as it's set up, with that Oil and Gas division under Nalcor with the
team of, we assume – I know some experience I had – pretty professional people,
well educated, appropriate across the board of certain professional and human
resources that are required, and they've been functioning there. There's a VP
that certainly operates there. I assume, as we go through, the minister will
give us some overview in terms of – because they're talking about efficiency and
doing it better so the first time when you hear about doing it better, I guess
you have to ask is it being done the best it can be done now under the current
arrangement. Because if you're changing it, there would be some indication that
maybe we're not meeting our true potential or meeting the directions that were
laid out to achieve our oil and gas success that we want to achieve.
It will
be interesting to hear, as we go through debate, from the minister about what's
not being achieved and how making this change is going to ensure that we can
meet possibly new milestones or directions that are being laid out now by the
current administration and how this is going to meet those objectives.
The
second component, any time you're increasing a structure or introducing more
individuals in terms of the regulatory framework there's always the question of
cost. What's this going to cost? Where is that cost coming from?
In the
briefing, and I think the minister alluded going through some of the
legislation, talked about having to implement a board of directors, a CEO, and
the set-up would require the installations of those positions as well, which
obviously in some degree has some cost. As well you look at branding, it's a new
Oil and Gas Corporation and what that involves as well.
We would
be interested to hear, as we go through, what that cost will be and how new
objectives or the objectives of Advance
2030 have a greater opportunity to be met, that supposedly is not being met
today, and this corporation somehow would allow that to happen. So we'll be
interested to hear discussion on that and how that will evolve.
The
other point currently in terms of Nalcor and the corporate entities that now
exist under that, this entity, the Oil and Gas Corporation, which we're doing
under Bill 42, will now work directly with the Department of Natural Resources.
There will be a direct line to the department. It's not going to be a line
department is my understanding that we traditionally see in government or the
public service, but there will be a direct line. There was reference made to a
Crown corporation or an agent of the Crown. We'll have discussion as we go
through in regard to that and how that's going to improve deficiencies that may
possibly exist by creating this Oil and Gas Corporation to this piece of
legislation.
Again,
there's going to be a direct line to the Department of Natural Resources, yet
we're still going to retain a CEO or there will be a requirement for the hiring
of a CEO. There will be a board of directors that will operate and the support
to go with the board of directors and what's needed. There will be reporting
requirement. All of that enhances the activity and new activity, once you take
this venue out of the current structure and set it up under this new legislation
we're talking about today.
talked about direct oversight as the Crown corporation reports to the Minister
of Natural Resources. Other reasoning given was alignment with government
policy, including Treasury Board policy and guidelines. That was talked to us in
the briefing we had talked about.
So then
it becomes the question of expenditures, and I know the legislation gets in and
talks about the approval mechanisms for borrowing, for operations, the reporting
requirements. All of those are laid out in the legislation, and we'll get into
that a little later.
When
you're referencing Treasury Board policies and guidelines, is there a
requirement – as we go through – for Treasury Board approval and what that
Treasury Board approval is going to be in regard to those policies and
guidelines. We'll have to discuss that and have some questions when we get into
Committee.
We were
also told that reduced cost with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is
a service provider and it supports The Way
Forward commitment to a more efficient public sector. Some of the things
I've talked about already in terms of a more efficient public sector – I guess
we'll have to see on that one when we look at the extra cost that's going to be
involved with the structure that's set up here and how that's going to be more
efficient, and how exactly it will work from what it does today and how greater
efficiency or greater return will be received under this proposed set up.
Another
one, it said it enables Nalcor to focus on its core business. That would leave
one to believe that right now Nalcor is not able to focus on its core business,
but the core business of Nalcor to be set up was the focus on renewable and
non-renewable. It would be regulated and unregulated activity.
So to
say to focus on its core business, we'll certainly have questions on what is
perceived by the government is their core business and what is it they can't do
today that setting up this new corporation is going to allow them to do to make
sure Nalcor Energy can focus on its core business. Because there seems to be a
deficiency somewhere that they're not able to do that. There are problems and
issues, and this entity is going to help correct it. So we'll be looking in
Committee to see exactly – an explanation on that.
As well,
when we were briefed on this by the officials in the Department of Natural
Resources, and as well from Finance, to identify and leverage opportunities for
growth in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industries for
exploration, equity, collaboration, promotion and development, all key elements
that we've seen to date, certainly in the oil and gas sector in this province –
well, the oil sector – and what we've seen in terms of development through
exploration and promotion of exploration to things like seismic work.
That was
started a number of years ago under Nalcor, putting – I think initially it was
$25 million, then $50 million in to drive that data, that seismic work, which
allows when we go to land sales and prior to that for the offshore, that those
large players, or all players in the industry that want to invest can see
first-hand what the opportunities are and why would they want to come here off
our shore and invest and drive economic opportunities here. So that's important
from the exploration point of view, that that work continues.
As I
say, that work is going on today. Even the minister speaks to the prospectivity
and what we've been able to achieve from that. Over the last couple of years
we've had significant land sales. One in particular, almost a billion dollars,
if I believe correctly. That's a couple of billion dollars now that's built up
from land sales that the exploration needs to be carried out over the next
number of years.
I would
assume that has worked, in terms of the current set-up for the Oil and Gas
division within Nalcor. Some great work, and it has been recognized by all sides
of the House that entity that's set up within Nalcor has done well and has
really driven exploration.
Now, we
do have some challenges with some of the legislative changes in Bill C-69 that's
being talked about in Ottawa and what that could do to our exploration. So it's
great to be talking about it here and the success we have to date, but we really
have to ensure that some of the changes – and I think Bill C-69 is in the Senate
now and it's been – there's a Senate Committee that's hearing representation on
it. I think the minister and the Premier has appeared before that Committee.
If we're
going to drive this and look at the return in our oil and gas sector, we need to
make sure – we don't need more regulation. We need regulations that provide the
appropriate risk mitigation, provide the atmosphere, provide the policy and
regulatory framework that to the very best we can protect that environment and
protect the industry and protect those that are involved in it.
We also
made sure that it doesn't get to such an extreme that it discourages investment.
We're competing in this environment and this industry around the world. It comes
down to, where is that investment dollar going to be? And what we're hearing
from industry, those involved in the oil and gas sector, the companies, the
supply companies and all these organization groups, they're concerned.
They're
concerned about Bill C-69 and some of the changes which could realistically take
away environmental assessment work that needs to be done for approving things
like exploration licences; traditionally done with the C-NLOPB here in
Newfoundland and Labrador which traces back to the Atlantic Accord, and a
fundamental principle of that Accord is that it would be shared jurisdiction.
And shared jurisdiction – we went to the Supreme Court. People know many years
ago the federal government took us to court. We wanted sole ownership of our
offshore resources. It went to Supreme Court: no, couldn't have that. We didn't
bring that into – apparently, bring it into Confederation in 1949.
What did
happen is through the Atlantic Accord it was agreed to, at the time, that we
could have shared jurisdiction as if those resources were on land, and out of
that grew the Atlantic Accord. Some of the fundamental principles in that Accord
relate to the C-NLOPB and what we're talking about here today in regard to Bill
42, and making sure the regulatory framework is conducive to further development
and exploration of all those resources we have offshore.
That's
where any legislative change with Bill C-69 – we need to be very careful and
advocate very loudly that that authority be left to the C-NLOPB in regard to a
regional assessment agency and not get wound into a big centralized service of
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency where the local control is lost
from our region and from the good work that's done here, and has been done with
the offshore petroleum board. So important, and that needs to be recognized
because that goes fundamental to the exploration content of what we're
referencing here today. That was one of the important points we talked about
when we got the briefing done in regard to maximizing what we're doing.
Equity
was another thing that was talked about in Bill 42. When I go through the bill,
or reference the bill later, we'll look at how that actual equity exists today.
In the current structure that's set up, the equity will remain within that and
all the investments to date will be in sort of a holding company or shell
company, and a second – the newer corporate entity will be set up and that will
hold all future equity investments or collaborations for any new entities that
are set up in the oil and gas.
talked about collaboration, working with all those in the industry to be
successful. Certainly, promotion and development is such a key as well, and
that's part of this bill as well I'm sure; this new corporation to allow us to
maximize our opportunity through promotion and development of what we have here
off our coast and how we're competitive and how we're open for investment, and
this is the place that those with the capital who want to invest to drive our
oil and, hopefully, gas sector in the near future.
fundamental principles of the mandate of this new corporation act, we're told,
is to maximize value through investment, equity and assets that maximize returns
from our offshore oil and gas resources. That's going on today, I understand,
under Nalcor. If it's different, I guess we'll hear about it later in debate.
Driving
resource development, opportunities through leadership, geoscience research,
data acquisition and promotion of exploration opportunities – all of that leads
to production and that leads to royalties and returns either through the
royalties, taxation and, certainly, we take a return on our equity we have in
these particular projects.
We're
also told: encouraging industry development through collaboration, strategic
initiatives to identify and enhance supply and service business opportunities.
That's key to our supply chain in the oil and gas sector, and this bill
apparently will help facilitate that.
We have
heard from industry and from those companies that support this industry that
they have seen over the last little while somewhat of a fall-off in regard to
their ability to get the majority or get a higher level of spinoff from the oil
and gas industry that has happened in prior years – especially when we've seen a
downturn in regard to some of the activity in this sector.
Some of
the larger companies do seem to bring others in from around the world and,
oftentimes, it could be of negative consequence to employees and companies who
provide those services here in this province. It's something as well we need to
be very vigilant of and it gets back again to the Atlantic Accord and being the
principal beneficiary of that Accord. It's important that we have those service
companies that do get access to the work and do it well. We also have global
contractors that often come in and, if we're not careful, they get a bit too
much of the work that's not supplied here by local contractors.
The
final one in terms of the mandate: will support government policy and
proprieties in the oil and gas through this, and it also talked about
implementation of Advanced 2030 in
support of business investment, industry growth and economic development. All
things that we believe are happening today, yet we're going to take this
division out and set up a different corporation which, from all we've seen,
would involve extra expense and we haven't seen yet what the return on that
would be, but maybe through Committee, in discussions, we will see that.
Currently, the legislation, the Oil and Gas corporation of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the corporation is to invest in and engage in and carry out activities
in the province and elsewhere, looking at things like exploration for the
development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of hydrocarbons
and products from hydrocarbons and certainly important research and development.
Now, we
would assume all of this is going on today and is being carried out. If there
are new ways that this is going to be enhanced through the setting up of this
entity, I guess we'll hear when we go through debate. There has been some great
work done, continues to be done and we have significant reserves out there. A
lot of the work has been done in terms of land sales, as I said, have proved
very positive.
In those
last couple of land sales, we've had some very big oil and gas companies from
around the world, new entrants, which gives an indication when things have
slowed a bit that those new entrants are coming here and see what the
possibilities are for development and they're willing to invest here. So that's
important. That's gone on even with the current structure and, from all we can
tell, has performed well.
The
corporation as well may engage in those other activities that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve. I guess that's related to maybe gas
or other entities but something we can talk about when we get to Committee.
The
legislation itself, as I said earlier, is not an agent of the Crown. It will
follow Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury Board policies and guidelines. The
Corporations Act will apply.
The Bull Arm Fabrication site, which exists now under its own corporate entity
under Nalcor, I understand, will be a subsidiary of this new corporation. Again,
it calls into question what's the set-up, what's the cost to do that and what's
the return on that investment to do this and to make that change.
The legislation also strives to ensure protection of
commercially sensitive information; that's outlined in the legislation. As well,
the Government of Newfoundland as shareholder will direct a dividend policy
through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in regard to what's drawn down in
this entity at any particular time.
Now, there are some reporting requirements that are a
little bit different. I do believe the fiscal statements are on a calendar year,
but there is some interesting reference to the fact of making projections
available to the Minister of Finance early in the fall. I think it's September,
as opposed to current Nalcor not being required to do that. So those are some of
the items that are a little different in regard to this particular
Corporations Act and what the
requirements are under Nalcor and what the requirements will be under this
division of the Oil and Gas Corporation.
I mentioned before about the current structure the way it
exists. There are boards of directors and all those types of things. Under this
proposal that we're debating here, the Oil and Gas Corporation will have a new
board of directors which need to be established, which will be paid per diems or
resources or whatever's
needed for them. A seven- to 11-member board will be appointed through the
Independent Appointments Commission, with independent directors up to a
five-year term, so this is all new.
As well,
there would be, for the subsidiary, a five- to seven-member board with
independent directors up to a five-year term; that would be new. CEO and
directors of both may be the same but independent directors must be different.
Government may appoint a representative to the board which is non-voting. So I
guess that's where it's tied back to the minister in terms of reporting
structure that would provide possibly some feedback to the department.
But that
brings the question, if this entity now is going to be different than the
current Nalcor structure, which would report to a board, and the board would
oversee the CEO and the executive, this entity we're talking about here is going
to have to implement a new board of directors and have a CEO, but the direct
line is going to be to the Department of Natural Resources and the minister,
which kind of conflicts with the current set-up of Nalcor and how that
particularly works. I guess we'll see, as well, what the advantages will be of
that and how that operation will make it more efficient, more collaborative and
hit those milestones and agendas that we heard about in the briefing.
mentioned earlier with regard to the corporate structure, Nalcor Energy Oil and
Gas Inc., the existing investments that are done to date in our various offshore
installations and operations; 4.9 per cent in Hebron, 10 per cent in Hibernia
South extension and 5 per cent in West White Rose extension will remain with
Nalcor Oil and Gas. That's when I mentioned earlier – the minister mentioned as
well, I do believe – they will operate and manage existing equity assets of
Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas Inc.
everything to date will stay there. I assume, at the end of the day, the wealth
that will be generated from these investments would be held here and then – I
guess we'll find out in Committee – flow overall to Nalcor, and then at some
point there'll be a decision made of what dividends will be paid out from that
and paid back to the provincial Treasury.
Second
to that, which we're talking about here, the Oil and Gas Corporation which will
be new, and that's the one that's set up when I talked about the CEO, the board
of directors, brand new entity, which reports to the Minister of Natural
Resources. The Bull Arm Fabrication, which now exists today, will become a
subsidiary of this new entity, the Oil and Gas Corporation. The Oil and Gas Inc.
employees and responsibility for seismic exploration activities will transition
to the new corporation. So we don't know if there's new hiring, but current
staff that now exist will be transferred into, we were told, this new Oil and
Gas Corporation with those in the particular fields, in the area of seismic
exploration activities, those types of things. Certainly it is very important to
driving the industry and making it a success.
The new
corporation as well will hold and manage future acquisitions. We're heard before
Bay du Nord and any projects that are moving towards sanction, any investment
done in those, I assume, would come into this new corporate entity and would be
held there and the oversight there for them and the returns as well. As I said,
the Bull Arm Fabrication will become a subsidiary of this new corporation we're
debating.
We're
advised some of the things that had to occur as we move forward with this
particular bill were: name of the corporation; CEO and interim board to be
announced at a later date – there was no date given for that – implementation of
a shared-services model. Shared-services model is an interesting one because
when you're setting up a new entity – I'm not really sure on the shared-services
model that should already exist within Nalcor itself I guess in the various
corporate entities. So maybe we should do that already before building or
putting in place a new corporation.
Transition of employees to the new corporation – that will be the numbers that
have to be decided on all those expertise and the functions of this new
corporate entity, what will need to be transferred over to this new corporation.
As well, mentioned about appointments made. The CEO needs to be appointed and
any other appointments to the new board being set up – the two particular boards
because I think there's a Bull Arm Fabrication board and there's also a board
for the new corporation. So all of that will need to be done and I guess it's
being done through the Independent Appointments process.
The
minister went through some of the actual bill and the sections. I just want to
touch on a couple. This is at a high level and we'll get a chance to dig into
these as we go through Committee. We talked about the holdings, how the holdings
that are currently in place would be maintained in a holding company and, going
forward, any new investments would be overseen. The biggest question going
through, as I said before, is the amount of savings, where they're coming from
and why the establishment of this corporate entity is required.
In the
briefing, we were told that the savings would be the result of alignment with
government policies, I guess, human resource policy, they talked about Treasury
Board policy and shared services as I mentioned just previously. If you can
certainly demonstrate it, all things are certainly worth considering and we'll
see as we go through how that is explained.
regard to the bill itself, there are an interesting couple of components to it.
It talks about the property of the corporation is not the property of the Crown.
Maybe that's got something to do with the Crown and agency of the Crown and how
it's particularly set up, the reporting requirements with Nalcor today with the
CEO and board of directors, and how this is going to perform with, again, the
CEO and a board of directors, yet reports into the Department of Natural
Resources.
Property
of the corporation is not property of the Crown. If you look at the
Energy Corporations Act ,
the property of the corporation is the property of the Crown, so there's a
difference here in where that's vested and the name of the corporation. So,
it'll be interesting to see when we go through discussion on that of some
questions, what that means, how that's a better fit in terms of what we're
trying to achieve, and the mandate of the 2030, as this current administration
has outlined in regard to oil and gas development and what's that going to mean
in terms of equity investments, where the equity investments come from, are they
accessible no matter where they're to in Nalcor. Certainly, dividends is a
question from the current structure of Nalcor to this new corporate entity, are
they going to change and is there any difference in how those dividends can be
drawn down. We talked about, too, the property of the
Corporations Act is not the property
of the Crown, as I mentioned, and that's going to be a question we can talk
about in Committee.
There's
section 8 that talks about the
Corporations Act , the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and those types of
things and what's been done. So, there are questions about the power and
authority of the board of directors because ultimately decisions are made by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council and there's also reference in the legislation to
the Finance Minister and to the Minister of Natural Resources.
So, if a
decision is made by this new board of directors of this new corporation, what's
their authority to make those decisions and can they make them without the
direction of the Minister of Finance and the