PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

September 15, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 44

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we begin the Routine Proceedings today, I would like to provide some information

to the House now related to a point of privilege raised by the MHA for Humber -

Bay of Islands on March 5, 2020.

At the

time the Member raised the point of privilege, I heard the Member's submission

and various other speakers in response. I then took the matter under advisement.

Since that time, a statement of claim dealing with related matters has been

filed by the Member in the Supreme Court in Corner Brook. An action has been

taken against two sitting Members of the House as well as a former Member of the

House and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, a statutory officer of

this House.

As you

know, the Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of Members of the House of

Assembly, and it is the Speaker's duty to enforce and uphold the rights of all

Members. The sitting Members named in the action also enjoy parliamentary

privilege which must be protected by the Speaker. In this unusual context, the

privileges of a Member – and a possible prima facie violation of that privilege

– are set against the sub judice convention. Free speech in this House is a key

element of parliamentary privilege and the sub judice convention is a voluntary

limit on that free speech. The sub judice convention is not codified, and as so

it is within the discretion of the Speaker to apply or enforce it.

The sub

judice convention has been described as a voluntary restriction on a Member's

right to free speech in order to prevent the possibility of such debate having

prejudicial effects on the rights of citizens to a fair trial; it is a restraint

imposed by the House on itself in the interest of justice and fair play.

The sub

judice convention also goes to the House's respect for the court processes, with

the court of course being separate and independent. As

Bosc and Gagnon indicates: “The

sub judice convention is important in

the conduct of business in the House. It protects the rights of interested

parties before the courts, and preserves and maintains the separation and mutual

respect between the legislature and the judiciary. The convention ensures that a

balance is created between the need for a separate, impartial judiciary and free

speech.”

I have

reviewed rulings of other Speakers on similar matters. I note that in a March

22, 1983 ruling in the House of Commons, former Speaker Sauvé said “the

sub judice convention has never stood

in the way of the House considering a

prima facie matter of privilege vital to the public interest or to the

effective operation of the House and its Members” but goes on to say that

“strictly speaking…while the sub judice

convention does not prevent debate on the matter, the fact remains that the

heart of this question of privilege is still before the courts which have yet to

make a finding. I believe that it would be prudent for the House to use caution

in taking steps that could result in an investigatory process that would, in

many ways, run parallel to the court proceeding, particularly given the Minister

is already a party to the court proceedings.” That's Speaker Sauvé's comments.

addition, in a May 9, 2000 ruling in this House, Speaker Snow indicated that the

sub judice “convention exists to protect parties to judicial actions, civil and

criminal, although it is invoked more readily in criminal cases or those in

which reputations are at stake.” He went on to say: “If the Chair is called upon

to rule on a matter of sub judice again, the matter will be reviewed in light of

the information available and the Chair will again exercise its discretion,

always keeping in mind the rights and interests of parties including the Members

of the House of Assembly.”

conclusion, the point of privilege raised by the Member includes a protracted

discussion of interactions with former Speaker Trimper, Premier Ball and the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Given the intertwined nature of comments

made to the point of privilege and matters alleged in the statement of claim, a

ruling on the matter while it is before the courts has the potential to

influence the judicial process and could result in a process that would parallel

court proceedings.

For the

information of Members, based on these considerations, I will not be ruling on

this point of privilege raised by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands until

the related matters have been resolved in the courts.

Further,

I remind Members that the sub judice rule forbids reference being made in

debate, as well as in motions and questions, to matters awaiting or under

adjudication. Members should govern themselves accordingly to this convention in

debate while the matter is before the courts.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, because it's the earliest possible time. You can rule on it in a couple

of years, that's fine, but I'm going to raise it. This will be my first

opportunity.

I rise

today on a point of privilege. O'Brien and Bosc in the

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states that a “Member must

satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of

the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.”

As per

our discussion on Friday, September 11, 2020, I sought your guidance on a point

of privilege. I have given you notice. I have a written copy of my point of

privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, in the Joyce report October 18, 2018, Bruce Chaulk, the Commissioner

for Legislative Standards writes: “I considered whether these findings could

support a conclusion of harassment in that Mr. Joyce's action during the hiring

process behaviour was unwelcome by the Complainant. I found MHA Joyce's comment

that he would follow the rules now too to imply a threat, even if he never

intended to act on it, and as such is objectionable nature.

“However, I was struck by the language used by the Complainant herself to

describe many of their interactions on this matter, that such behaviour is what

they do, trying to get their points across whenever they have a moment in front

of someone. Accordingly, I'm not sure that MHA Joyce knew, or ought to have

known, that calling the Complainant about the hiring process would have been

unwelcome by her.” This was the finding of Rubin Tomlinson; the experts hired

and confirmed that there was no bullying and harassment.

“Relationships between Members and government employees should be professional

and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of those

employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.

“I find

that the conduct of MHA Joyce is a violation of principle 10 of the Code of

Conduct. His behaviour during the hiring process fell below the standard

expected of a Member of the House of Assembly. I find that the manner in which

he addressed this issue was unprofessional and showed a lack of mutual respect

towards members of the public service by placing those individuals in the middle

of a process that is supposed to be politically impartial. This type of conduct

is not acceptable and must be discouraged.”

Rubin

Tomlinson, the expert, found that there was no bullying and harassment, even

with the phone call. The Commissioner clearly states that the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's was a government employee, misled the House of Assembly

and squeezed it under principle 10, relationship between Members and government

employees. This is false, an intentional

interpretation of principle 10 and is

unbecoming of the ethics commissioner and I will explain why.

In a

session of the House of Assembly the Commissioner tried to justify this by

saying that Members are plural. He refused to address the issue of clarifying a

Member as a government employee. Mr. Chaulk stated it is up to the House to

decide who to apologize to.

Mr.

Chaulk stated on many occasions that he is an independent Officer of the House.

Was there any outside influence or did the ethics commissioner violate his own

oath by communicating with Dwight Ball and his staff?

August 23, 2018, in a public statement to the media, Dwight Ball stated: no room

for political interference, so hasn't sought any update. Dwight Ball states he

has not seen or sought out any information, given it's an independent process. I

quote: There's no room for political interference in these reports, said Ball. I

have not received any information from the Commissioner, nor have I ever went

looking for any.

These

statements were made in response to a press release from the Leader of the

Opposition, the day the by-election was called, August 23, 2018.

These

statements are totally false, as on August 6, 2018, Dwight Ball informed me that

the Holloway Report would be coming out on August 6, 2018. He called me that

night and informed me that the Holloway Report for myself and Dale Kirby will be

coming out together. On August 24, both reports came out together.

I have a

letter dated May 31, signed by Dwight Ball, in which he states: I can confirm

that there were limited occasions whereby my office contacted the Office of the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Mr.

Kirby made an application to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to

obtain a copy of the Rubin Thomlinson report. In that court case, the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards is stating: Members are not government

employees. I quote from the submission from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Paragraph 24: “It remains the Respondent's position that members are not

considered employees pursuant to ATIPPA. The language of the Act supports the

conclusion that a member is not an employee, with a distinction made between the

two roles throughout the Act. This distinction appears in s.55 and s.62 of the

Act which read as follows: … An employee or a member who reasonably

believes that he or she has information that could show that a wrongdoing has

been committed or it about to be committed may make a disclosure to his or her

supervisor, the clerk, a member of the audit committee chosen under paragraph

23(2)(b), or the investigator.”

I'll go

on to

section 62: “Where a supervision, the speaker, the clerk or the

investigator is of the opinion that it is necessary to further the purposes of

this Part, he or she may, in accordance with the rules, arrange for legal advice

to be provided to employees and members ….” Referenced by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards:

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act .

The Code

of Conduct, which I was found in violation of, also recognizes a distinction

between MHAs and employees.

Section

10: “Relationships between Members and government employees should be

professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of

these employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.”

paragraph 26: It is clear that one reviews the act and the Code of Conduct that

there is a distinction between Members and employees. If Members were to be

considered employees for the purposes of the act and the Code of Conduct, there

would be no need for such a distinction to exist.

Section

2(

i) of the ATIPPA defines “'employee', in relation to a public body, includes a

person retained under a contract to perform services for the public body.”

Members

are not retained under a contract to perform services for a public body, but

rather they are elected representatives that are subject to the rules and

conventions of the Legislature. The duties they perform are by virtue of them

being elected to hold office, and not pursuant to a contractual relationship.

Paragraph 29: When the definition of 'employee' is considered in the context of

the distinction made between the terms 'member' and 'employee' in the act and

the Code of Conduct, it is evident that Members are not to be considered

employees in the context of ATIPPA, but rather elected representatives who serve

at the will of the people.

Mr.

Speaker, I quote again from The Joyce

Report of October 18, 2018: “Relationships between Members and government

employees should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have

regard to the duty of those employees to remain politically impartial when

carrying out their duties.” The Commissioner went on to say, “I find that the

manner in which he addressed this issue was unprofessional and showed a lack of

mutual respect” to a member of the public service.

Mr.

Speaker, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, our ethics commissioner,

cannot make contradictory statements, one in the House of Assembly, to define an

elected Member as a public servant, to find a member in violation of principle

10, then claim in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador that a Member

is not a public servant to deny access to the Rubin Thomlinson report.

The

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, the ethics commissioner, made false and

misleading statements either in the House of Assembly or in the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Was

there any influence by Dwight Ball in the Premier's office, who was in contact

with Bruce Chaulk, to make these deliberate findings? The question has to be

answered.

rights, as a Member, have been violated by the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards, who happens to be the ethics watchdog.

All the

evidence is in writing and enclosed is a copy of the submission to the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, where these statements were made.

This is

serious. This is attacking our foundation of the House of Assembly to allow such

disregard for the House of Assembly.

If you

make a decision that is a prima facie case, I'm asking that you refer

The Joyce Report of October 18 and

The Kirby Report of October 3 back to

the House of Assembly. I want to make it quite clear if you decide this is a

prima facie case and this is referred back to the House of Assembly, we'll be

discussing the process, not the merits of the reports, but the process alone.

Mr.

Speaker, O'Brien and Bosc states: “It is impossible to codify all incidents

which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation

or intimidation and as such constitutes

prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be

prima facie include” – and this is

very important Mr. Speaker – “the damaging of a Member's reputation, the

usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of members and

their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading

information.”

O'Brien

and Bosc quote Maingot as stating: “The purpose of raising matters of

'privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and

credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to

uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its

Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be

reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised

in the House of Commons.”

I refer

to O'Brien and Bosc, page 141, where matters involving privilege before the

House of Commons are treated with utmost seriousness. As you outlined, there is

a formal process to be followed. I have followed that process and notified the

Speaker of my intentions to raise the issue of privilege and this is the

earliest possible opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER:

Any other speakers to this

point of privilege?

I'll

take this matter under advisement. I also should note that our requirements are

that points of privilege be presented in writing to the Speaker an hour before

the House opens, and this one was about a half an hour late by that standard.

But I'll take this matter under advisement and report back to the House at a

later date.

Statements by Members.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl

North, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Ferryland and Bonavista.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, on July 29, I

had the honour of presenting the Newfoundland and Labrador Award for Bravery to

Ralph Joyce of Lark Harbour in recognition of his heroic efforts in saving his

friend, John Parsons.

February 7, 2019, Mr. Joyce and Mr. Parsons were walking on Bottle Cove head

trail in Lark Harbour when Mr. Parsons slipped and began sliding down an icy

embankment towards the ocean, with about a 100-foot drop.

Fortunately, his foot caught a small rock which stopped him about two feet

before the edge of the cliff. Realizing that it was too far to go get help, Mr.

Joyce quickly responded instructing Mr. Parsons to remain still while he

searched for something he could use, and eventually found a dead tree nearby.

Despite

facing incredible dangerous icy conditions himself, Mr. Joyce managed to

carefully extend the tree to Mr. Parsons and pulled him to safety. As Mr. Joyce

stated, “I could have went on just as well as him. I didn't think about that at

the time.” The outcome of that day could have been much different but due to Mr.

Joyce's unselfish act, Mr. Parsons was able to return home safely to his family.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Joyce on receiving this

well-deserved award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

honour one of Mount Pearl's most respected and valued citizens, Mr. Harvey

Hodder. Mr. Hodder's first memories of Mount Pearl are visiting his future wife,

Pearl, in 1962. He moved to Mount Pearl in 1963 where he and Pearl settled and

raised their family. They sill reside there today.

Over the

years, Mr. Hodder has put his heart and soul into the community of Mount Pearl.

He began his career in the early '60s as a teacher at Mount Pearl Central High.

As my former principal, I can assure you he is remembered as someone who

genuinely cared and respected each and every student.

He was

elected four times as mayor; he served a total of 23 years on Mount Pearl City

Council and was a driving force behind the creation of the Mount Pearl Frosty

Festival – now in its 38th year. Harvey served as MHA for Waterford Valley from

1993 to 2007 and spent four years as Speaker of this very House.

mention just a few of Harvey's accomplishments, he served 12 years on the St.

John's Metropolitan Area Board, former secretary of the Canadian Heart

Foundation, a former member of the Board of Regents of Memorial University,

recipient of Canada 125 medal in 1992. He's also an honorary member of the Royal

Canadian Legion.

I ask

all those present to join me in wishing him well and honouring Mr. Harvey Hodder

for his invaluable contribution to Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this year, 2020, has been deemed the Stay Home Year.

I'm

inviting everyone to make the excursion around the bay to come and visit the

Conception Bay Museum in Harbour Grace. Come for the summer lunchtime concerts

in the park, the Haunted Harbour Grace hike, book launches and guest lectures,

tours of Peter Easton's pirate path, historic Gibbet Hill and the many exhibits

that display our rich, local heritage.

Folklore

dictates that the earliest museum structure on the site was Pirate Peter

Easton's fortification construction in spring of 1612. Later in the 1800s, the

building served as the Customs House, a tuberculosis clinic, as well as an

office for the provincial department of Social Services. The building was also

the centre of business and international trade for all Conception Bay ports.

The

Conception Bay Museum is a non-profit organization guided by a committed and

dedicated group of volunteers who continue to uphold high- quality, professional

standards. More than 3,000 people visited the site last year.

The

followings and website visits, second only to The Rooms Provincial Archives.

Mr.

Speaker, 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Customs House construction.

I invite

everyone to come and visit the Conception Bay Museum and a special thank you to

all volunteers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today in

this hon. House I would like to recognize all essential workers. The past

several months have been a very trying and difficult time for everyone in

society.

I am

honoured to have this opportunity to send out a big thank you to the many of the

essential workers who have worked so hard over the past few months and continue

to work diligently to complete their duties safely and efficiently. The

essential workers have done a great job ensuring that life's essential

necessities and services are readily available to everyone during this pandemic.

Each and

every one of our essential workers have certainly helped ease the burden,

relieved the stress and worked persistently to keep the rest of us safe since

the start of the pandemic.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members in this House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating all essential workers, especially the ones of Ferryland District

and this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Mr. Speaker, Tom and Pearl Janes of Musgravetown – Tom a retired teacher and

Pearl an accordion and guitar player – have entertained for decades at

educational and social events. The Janes – married over 50 years ago – have

contributed to their community just as long.

Tom

studied and played the infamous ugly stick and has made approximately 500 of

these instruments. Tom is admirably referred to as the ugly-stick man. They have

played at coffee shops, senior homes, summer programs, kitchen parties,

Screech-ins, singalongs, birthday parties and other events. They always look

forward to putting smiles on people's faces, especially seniors.

Last

year, Tom and Pearl worked with 28 students at Heritage Collegiate in Lethbridge

making ugly sticks. Each student made a musical instrument and they all played

“I'se da B'y,” with Pearl leading the group. They taught exchange students from

Owen Sound, Ontario, to construct their own ugly stick while visiting Anthony

Paddon Elementary.

Tom

serves as president of the Bloomfield-Musgravetown Lions Club, while Pearl

serves as the club's secretary. Tom has served on municipal council, served as

zone chair for Lions Club in District 4 and served as district chair for the Dog

Guides project.

I ask

this House to join me in congratulating and celebrating these consummate

community volunteers, Tom and Pearl Janes of Musgravetown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to be in this hon. House today to highlight a new approach that can

help residents of our province stay active as we learn to live with COVID-19.

Last

week, I was pleased to join more than 200 participants for the Regaining

Movementum Webinar, which was hosted by my department.

The

webinar was co-developed and moderated by Joe Doiron, who has extensive

experience in sport, physical activity and recreation policy and programming.

Mr.

Speaker, those who work and volunteer in the public health, physical activity,

sport and recreation sectors play a valuable role in the health and well-being

of individuals, families and communities.

They

have adapted their approaches to program delivery during the pandemic, and we

appreciate their dedication and ingenuity in finding new ways to engage with the

public.

This

two-hour event provided a valuable opportunity for them to share and learn about

ways to help people of all ages stay healthy and active during these challenging

times.

I am

pleased to say that it was the first webinar of its kind in Canada, and we hope

that these types of sessions will become a model for other provinces and

territories to follow as we all continue to find ways to stay active during this

evolving public health situation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Over the

last number of months, we've had to find new, alternative ways to get together

and innovate through video conferencing and social distance gatherings. I would

like to thank Joe Doiron for hosing this webinar. His experience in sport,

physical activity and recreation policy provide guidance to all those who took

part. Finding ways to adapt to the new normal is something we all must do in

order to stay active in this COVID world. The minister noted that the webinar

was the first of its kind in Canada as well.

Mr.

Speaker, the Official Opposition joins the minister in commending the host and

participants of the Regaining Movementum Webinar, who are encouraging people to

stay active during these unprecedented times.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and compliment his

department and Joe Doiron for hosting this event.

We know

the part that exercise and physical activity play in mental health and creating

a healthy society. The COVID-19 pandemic closed gyms, recreation programs, dance

studios, swimming pools, to name just a few, and with them the social and

exercise routine of residents. Webinars such as this help organizations reopen

services and safely adhere to public health measures.

I trust

government will continue to dialogue with these organizations to determine what

other supports they need to deliver their programs.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, hunters took

part in a highly anticipated cultural

and recreational tradition in this province – the start of the big game hunting

season.

Based in

part on valuable input from the hunting community, several positive changes

introduced for 2020-21 will modernize and enhance the hunting experience in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, for the first time, the starting date for all Moose Management Areas on

the Island has been aligned to support the desire for fair and equal

opportunities for all hunters. Previously, the opening date in the Eastern

region was three weeks later than the rest of the Island.

Other

policy changes for 2020-21 include the reintroduction of the Jawbone Collection

Program, and permitting the use of crossbows and smaller calibre rifle .17

rimfire ammunition, creating consistency with regulations already in effect in

most other jurisdictions in Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, I wish all hunters good luck this hunting season and encourage everyone

to review the 2020-21 Hunting and Trapping

Guide for important safety and hunting information.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, we are glad to see the department making changes and incorporating

knowledgeable input from people in the hunting community. We are particularly

pleased that government has finally acknowledged the importance of the Jawbone

Collection Program and reinstated it. This is something that we – in particular,

my colleague from Mount Pearl North – have been lobbying for, for some time.

Mr.

Speaker, this program should never have been paused, as the scientific data

collected provides valuable insight into the health of our province's moose and

caribou populations which is so critically important to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, the opening of the big game hunt is something that many people across

the province look forward to every year, and I want to wish everyone a very safe

and successful hunting season.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I wish

hunters of all abilities a safe and bountiful hunting season, including my wife

on her first moose hunt as a licence holder. These changes are good –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWN:

These changes are good, but

one thing that was overlooked was the restrictive minimum distance requirement

for hunters with disabilities who cannot navigate difficult terrain despite

their ability to obtain a moose licence. I hope the minister will fix this

unfortunate gap that severely limits people with mobility issues.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, since the days

of my late father, the hon. John C. Crosbie, the PC plan for offshore jobs

included commissioning offshore platforms.

Is the

Liberal plan for offshore jobs to create them by decommissioning platforms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

speak slowly to this one, Mr. Speaker, because I find it very disingenuous of

the Member opposite to even suggest that we would want to decommission. We have

worked tirelessly over the last five years, Mr. Speaker, of this administration

to grow the offshore industry. The Member opposite knows that, every member of

the oil and gas community knows that, operators know that. I can say to the

Member opposite, we have worked tirelessly to grow the industry. We have a very

strong plan that was approved and developed by members of the industry.

He's a

late start to this game and he's a late start to bringing in any kind of plan. I

would say to the Member opposite that the PCs had no plan and thought they'd

just take ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, with all these

pro-oil principles that the minister is telling us about, I'd like to know when

she's going to break ranks with the anti-oil Trudeau Liberals.

We heard

that the Trudeau Liberal's are offering Husky $500 million to shut down work.

Can the minister confirm whether this is on the table?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to take this question from the Member opposite. What I can say is I have

absolutely no idea what he's talking about there. That is not a conversation

that I have had.

I can

say that we've been speaking to Husky. We've been speaking to the federal

government and it's about trying to get these projects up and running, getting

people back to work. We have some big challenges, but, again, we're trying our

best to get through them.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the press asked the Premier if the Trudeau Liberals will come to

the table on offshore support. He said: The question is best asked of the

Trudeau Liberals, not him.

Does

this mean the Premier thinks the press have a better chance of getting an answer

than he does?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

think the Premier is saying that if you want to get something from the federal

government, you can certainly ask them.

What I

can say is that what we are trying to do is, yes, work with the federal

government as they are a partner in this and they have a role to play in this

when it comes to supporting the offshore.

Again, I

have to mention to the Member that it wasn't that long ago that a leading Member

of the Conservative Party said that investing money in these businesses was a

losing idea. So, again, we're talking about the federal government here, you may

want to talk to your colleagues up there as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would say to both ministers opposite and the government that

offshore workers want the Premier to use his claimed ability to leverage

relationships in Ottawa to save their jobs.

How many

more jobs will be lost before the government decides to use the Premier's

so-called leverage?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said earlier, the PCs are linked to this game. We've been working with Ottawa

for the last six months; working with industry, working to develop a plan,

working to ensure that we have a vibrant industry offshore.

We have

been diligent and forthright with the federal government, as partners in our

offshore, as to some of the concerns. Mr. Speaker, we have been working with

both the operators, as well as the investors, as well as those that do

exploration offshore.

Just

because he's late to this doesn't mean that the work hasn't been done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

see you're doing a great job. There's a protest tomorrow; we should have a good

crowd. We will talk to you tomorrow.

The

Terra Nova FPSO sits in Conception Bay while many proud and skilled

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians sit home without a job. The Terra Nova is not

producing oil as it's waiting for major maintenance and a refit.

I ask

the minister: What efforts have you taken that this refit take place in this

province, in places like Marystown and Bull Arm?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

certainly I appreciate the question from the Member opposite, because we all

know how important this industry is to this province.

The

reality is that there are not many shipyards that are available to handle a

refit of this nature and we're still working through this. One of the issues,

obviously, that came in at the exact same time as this is the world-crushing

impact that COVID and the price wars had on this industry. When you just look at

CNBC saying that oil companies have lost a trillion dollars this year, the

reality is that they're all looking internally to see what they can do and when

they can do that.

We'll

continue working with them. We've met with them literally on a day-to-day basis

to try to help them work through this and see what we, as a provincial

government, can do.

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, a significant portion of the Terra Nova was originally built by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and these same workers are now sitting home

without a job. They could be helping us get the vessel back in production.

I ask

the minister: Why haven't you been able to secure a future for the Terra Nova in

this province and get our workers back to work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say that certainly there's been no lack of effort on behalf of everybody, I

think, in the industry, as well as the federal government and the provincial

government, trying to get this industry back up and running. The reality is, as

I just mentioned, that some of the impacts are beyond the control of absolutely

everybody in this building, when we talk about what COVID and the pricing war

have done. This is the reality when we have a province that's so reliant on oil

that we're at the mercy of it.

What I

can say is that when you have trillion-dollar losses in this industry, even very

successful companies have to look inside as it relates to liquidity, as it looks

at their balance sheet. We are making those efforts, but there are some factors

that are out of our control. We are working with these companies, working with

the federal government to figure out solutions and options to help get people

back to work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, thank you for the answer, but I tell you, the industry are looking for

leadership within this government, so I hope that's not lost on you.

The

sooner the refit is completed the sooner production can resume. This would help

our province's finances, but more importantly, it will get our people back to

work.

I ask

the minister: What is the timeline to have the Terra Nova back in production?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, and I appreciate

the question from the Member.

What I

would point out to people is that we need to be talking about this. I do

appreciate these questions because they are important to all of our

constituents.

I don't

have a timeline to report here right now. The reality is that these companies,

which are facing dropping oil prices, a volatility – we saw a $5 decrease just

last week alone. We saw what happened last April and the fact that there have

been huge losses faced by the entire industry. Right now, I don't have that

information to report to the House, but what I can say is we are extremely

cognizant of the impact of what's going on. We're aware of the timelines and

that time is of the essence.

What I

would say is that I do think we are providing leadership, we can, and the

abilities that we can to try to get this back up and running.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, over the last 10

years, Trades NL has donated $20 million to our community organizations like

Ronald McDonald House, Daffodil Place, The Gathering Place, Kids Eat Smart

Foundation and the School Lunch Association. As Trades NL themselves said: when

men and women are working they are giving back to our society. We know right now

that people are not working.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Without corporate support from groups like Trades NL,

where will this money come from?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For

certain, there is absolutely no doubting the impact that groups like Trades NL

and their workers have had on all the groups that the Member named. That's

extremely difficult to replace.

What I

would point out is two things; one, COVID has had a significant impact not just

on business and the economy around the world but also on these groups. You only

have to talk to some of these organizations that are having huge trouble trying

to raise money in times like this. That's absolutely certain.

The

other thing I have to point out here is when we talk about that issue and when

we talk about Husky, for instance, we talk about the huge, huge cash injection

that's been asked for. One of the issues that we have, like companies, is

liquidity and one of the reasons is all the money we have invested in Muskrat

Falls.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the offshore oil

industry is not only important for jobs but it supports our communities. For

example, Husky is a proud supporter of Easter Seals as the title sponsor for

their facility. Last year when called upon, Husky gave additional monies towards

the Flood Relief Campaign.

Without

corporate support from the offshore oil industry, I ask the Minister of Finance:

Is she prepared to step up?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

understand how challenging this is for the industry. We have worked very closely

with the industry. We hope that it can rebound. It's a global crisis, not a

provincial crisis. We would love to be able to have the oil industry in this

province not only back to where it was, but more robust again. And we would be

able to say to the communities that the investments by the oil and gas companies

have certainly helped to grow our community support system and we hope to have

it back doing so again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister

of Finance explain why she needs three months Interim Supply?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Three

months Interim Supply is a normal supply period for any budget – a normal supply

period for any budget. As the Member opposite surely should know, that once you

have a budget, of course, the Interim Supply rests. There is no reason not to

have an Interim Supply period that really does understand the Estimates process,

the budget process.

naturally and normally takes over 50 days, Mr. Speaker, to conclude a budget

process. Once the budget process is concluded, Interim Supply rests. We actually

have a democratic process in this system and we must adhere to that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ.

I understand normal supply period of three months when a budget is brought down

in April, but over the last four years it has taken an average of 15 days to

introduce and pass a budget. In other words, four sitting weeks.

So once

again I ask the minister: Why does she need three months Interim Supply when we

know the budget will be introduced and can be passed by the end of October?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

say to the Member opposite, his information is incorrect. I can provide him the

information on how long it has taken. I can say to the Member opposite, because

surely he knows, just one of the concurrent processes of budget takes 75 hours,

Mr. Speaker – 75 hours to just do one concurrent process of the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly

provide the information to the minister tomorrow, exactly what it took for the

last four budgets.

I'd ask

the minister again: Why do we need three months Interim Supply?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

will say to the Member opposite, multiple factors. First of all, it normally

takes over 50 days. I can tell the Member opposite, that's the information I

have, I'd be happy to provide it to him. Over 50 days in a generalized rule of

thumb. Two, we are in the middle of a budget – it's a normalized budget process,

so normally three months supply, and where it takes over 50 days we came in with

the same process.

Mr.

Speaker, three, I've heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about: well, he

doesn't know what's in the budget, maybe we'll go to an election. We are in a

minority government. We do have to have provisions to ensure that if the

democratic process does mean that we're going to an election – and, obviously,

the Member opposite is musing about that – then we have to be prepared as a

government because that's what we do, we lead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!'

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want an election. As a

matter of fact, your own leader said he did not want an election.

Let me

clearly tell the minister: Budget 2016, presented on April 14, 2016, finished in

the House on May 31, 2016, 24 sitting days. Budget 2017, presented on April 6,

2017, finished in the House May 16, 2017, 15 sitting days. Budget 2018,

presented in the House March 27, 2018, finished in the House via Supply Act, May

22, 17 sitting days. Budget 2019, passed via Supply Act, June 26, nine sitting

days.

I ask

the minister: Why do we need three months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Two can play this game, Mr.

Speaker. Budget 2018 was released on March 27 and was passed on May 22, 57 days

later. Budget 2017 was released on April 6 and passed on May 16, 41 days later.

Budget 2016 was released on April 14 and passed on May 31, 48 days later.

Mr.

Speaker, I completely concur that the people of the province do not want an

election, but when the Opposition plays politics – Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are worried about COVID, they're worried about their jobs, they're

worried about their future, and they're playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody

on this side of the House asking for an election; apparently you are.

Do you

need three months Interim Supply?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite should know that we do not control that process.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason why you normally have three months supply is to allow for

Estimates, is to allow for concurrent debate. The Member opposite should know

that. The Member opposite should know we don't know if they're going to bring in

an amendment or a subamendment or have everyone speak three times to the budget.

Those are things we do not know, so we have to be prudent and responsible and

leaders in this province, and prepared. That is exactly what we are doing on

behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If the

Member opposite wishes to pass that budget on October 2, then we will no longer

need Interim Supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I was shocked, like so many in the province, to hear the Minister of

Energy say he knows what the people in the oil and gas industry are going

through.

drilled for oil for 17 years and watched the Liberals – your buddies in Ottawa –

decimate the industry throughout Western Canada – decimate it. We now face the

same fate here in the province.

I ask

the minister: Does he really think relying on Ottawa will preserve jobs for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to speak to this question, again, as I did yesterday. The reality is that

I certainly am hearing from workers all over this province that are fearing for

their future. I certainly, as I said yesterday, empathize with them. I feel for

them.

What I

would say to the Member opposite is that what this company is asking for is a

significant cash injection, one that is quite beyond our capacity to do. To say

that it's similar to Hibernia would be not to recognize the scope of where we

are. We, as a province, are just not there.

So what

I can say is we will continue to work with the operators, but as it relates to

this particular request, we do not have that ability right now for multiple

reasons.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good

government should be able to talk to these people and get a deal done.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister continues to rely on his friends in Ottawa without any

evidence that support any help is coming.

I ask

the minister: What do I tell my friends around the province who I've worked with

that are about to lose their homes, their livelihoods, their families? It's

happened throughout Western Canada and we see it happening here.

With no

support from the government in Ottawa and no fight from this government in the

eleventh hour, what do we tell these people who are about to lose absolutely

everything? Because they're going to lose it; they're losing it right now.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Member opposite, while passionate, clearly doesn't understand the

significance of the ask that has been made, and to say that good government will

get a deal done simply does not cut it.

What I

will say – what do you tell your friends? One of the things that you should do,

we have an issue with liquidity because of the billions that has gone into

Muskrats Falls, so I suggest you look at some of the Members that sit around

your table and say why did you do that deal that is hampering our ability to

make these investments today?

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, we're

continually bringing workers in from outside the province to work on government

infrastructure projects, yet we have so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

without a job.

I ask

the minister: Why are out-of-province workers still doing this work? When is

this government going to put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I would advise

the Member opposite to do a little more research. He will be happy to know 95

per cent of the people working on our projects in this province are local

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I suggest the minister go to

Grand Falls or Corner Brook to see some of the workers from Quebec that are

doing drywall and ironwork. There are lots of people here to do that work.

Mr.

Speaker, many rotational workers in our province are only getting one day at

home outside quarantine, yet the so-called essential out-of-province workers can

come and go as they please.

I ask

the minister: Why the double standard? When are you going to put Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians first?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Essential workers are deemed essential by the employers. As far as quarantine or

isolation requirements are concerned, they are exempt only while going to and

from work and on the work site whilst maintaining COVID-19 precautions such as

physical distancing and mask wearing. They are not free to roam around at will.

Rotational workers, we have heard of their plight. We have twice over the course

of the last six months made adaptations to make their life easier, including

very recently testing to allow shortening of their quarantine period to seven

days, Mr. Speaker.

It is

working. We have a very low prevalence. The rest of the country is looking at us

to see what they did wrong.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I'll remind the minister that

the essential workers from outside the province are working alongside

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Rotational workers are key drivers to our

local economy. They pay taxes; they work hard to put food on their tables. Many

workers are feeling stressed about the current rules that are relaxed to support

non-residents but are tightened against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask again: Why can't rotational workers do a day-one test at points

of entry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

evidence shows quite clearly that what we have suggested as our latest

adaptation to help rotational workers is based on sound science. It is a

four-week pilot; it will be analyzed at the end of that. If it's possible to

improve their conditions still further, I would love to be able to do it.

But I

turn around to the Member opposite and say look at Ontario, look at British

Columbia, they are going back into lockdown. Our restrictions, unpleasant and a

nuisance as they are, are vital to the protection of the people of this

province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister continually refers to the testing at point of entry as

a snapshot in time.

A simple

yes or no: Would you have liked to have that snapshot back in March when the

Caul's Funeral Home cluster started?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

There is no scientific

evidence, Mr. Speaker, to justify point-of-entry testing. It is a waste of

resources and it encourages a false sense of security.

You have

seen what has happened in other jurisdictions where they do this. They are now

suffering and talking about locking down the most populous province in Canada

once again. I'm not going down that road, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier was asked about unlocking pensions and said that he had

not had any discussion on this issue. Many people in the province are struggling

financially, like those in the offshore sector, and do not have a job and are

facing bankruptcy, but cannot access their own money at this time.

Minister, as this was not an important issue enough for the Premier to be

briefed on, can you provide an update on this very important issue to so many

people?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you very much, and I thank the Member for the question.

Unlocking pensions is a very serious and complex issue. We currently have

consultations open on engageNL and that's available until September 30. So far

we've received over 70 submissions, so I encourage you and all your constituents

to file a submission. Using that information, working with stakeholders, the

department will make a recommendation.

I'd also

like to add, though, that one of the key factors of unlocking pensions that I

think is misunderstood is that no one anywhere in the world allows active plan

members to unlock their pensions. We're talking about LIRAs, for example, not

public service pension, not NLTA pension. It's very complex and I encourage all

of your constituents to submit a submission to our consultation online by

September 30.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

spring, this House approved $4.6 billion in government spending with no budget

or plan. Today, government is asking for another $1.5 billion more.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: In the interest of accountability and transparency,

without passing Interim Supply, how much longer can government make payroll?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me

to address the first of the

preamble to that question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we did

approve six month Interim Supply during a pandemic. We had to come into the

House during a pandemic to pass the second three-month period, I remind the

Member, because they wouldn't allow before we went home, because we were in the

middle of the pandemic.

I will

say to the Member opposite, as she should be aware, this is money that – this is

based on the 2019-2020 budget. There's no new spending here. So the

accountability provisions, the review, the context of the review, is based on

the analysis and review that was done in the 2019-2020 budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

repeat: How much longer can government make payroll?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite well knows that it was a six-month supply, that by the end of

September we would be out of money, and if they do not provide government with

direction on Interim Supply before the end of the month, they would be impacting

health care, they would be impacting teachers, they would be impacting seniors

getting their pharmaceuticals, they would be impacting the health and safety and

services of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

want to call it, was sent to the department on May 27.

Considering the financial implications of this plan, I ask the Minister of

Education: When was it discussed at Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't

District to help form a plan with consultation with many stakeholders. There was

a wide array of possible solutions.

The plan

that was eventually put forward, Mr. Speaker, in early July, that's what was

discussed at Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

a lot of people would be disturbed by that information.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education: Is he content that while MHAs enjoy

over 50 square feet per person in a spacious, well-ventilated Chamber, that in

at least one classroom in this city, 24 students and their teacher are crammed

into a poorly ventilated, small, windowless classroom with a little over 16.5

square feet per person, which, as I understand it, is less than what is

permitted by fire regulations?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Question (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

It's the option of a Member

to not answer a question if they see fit.

The hon.

the Minister of Education.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, as a former

Speaker, I'm well aware of the jurisdiction of this Legislature and who makes

the rules in the Legislature, and it isn't the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

(inaudible) of our highways is a long drawn-out project with many parts still

without blacktop. It is known that the contractor moved equipment back to the

Island for other work further delaying completion of this project. The patience

of Labradorians have grown thin.

I ask

the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: Why is he allowing these

delays to happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to

speak about the Trans Labrador Highway. I had the opportunity to drive it this

past summer.

The

Member opposite would be happy to know we spent about, I think, 25 per cent of

our budget over the last five years on the Trans Labrador Highway. Right now,

it's actively being done. There's a contractor in place right now. COVID, no

doubt, caused some delays in most everything. The work is ongoing. Everyday

they're laying asphalt.

As we

speak, Mr. Speaker, they will lay asphalt this year until – I won't say until

the snow flies because it could be beyond that, but until conditions stop us we

will lay asphalt this year; hoping to complete another 80 kilometres of pavement

on the Trans Labrador Highway. Well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West, time for a quick question.

MR. BROWN:

I ask the minister: Will the

contractor face penalties for significantly delaying the completion of this

project in obligations that were favoured for work on the Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure, for a quick answer.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon.

Member wants to make that accusation, I suggest he go to court with that one

because we are not in a place to judge on that right now. The work has been

allocated and the work is ongoing. We cannot favour where a contractor goes.

They have the ability to move throughout this province and there's no way you

can write in any contract where you have to be at any given time of the year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

(Inaudible due to technical difficulties.)

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

I have a few documents to

table.

accordance with subsection 18(9) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I wish

to inform the House that the current Members of the Management Commission are

the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Minister of

Finance, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Conception Bay South, the

Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, myself, the Speaker, and the Clerk of

the House.

Also, in

accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby

table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held

on December 4, 2019, December 18, 2019, July 8, 2020, and July 15, 2020.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I give

notice that the House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions for the

Granting of Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Answering the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the House

understands. We'll be out of appropriations, which is approval to spend the

money. We won't be out of cash by the end of the month. I just want to make sure

people understand that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further answers to

questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

long-term care facility in Bonavista serving the region has been short staffed

on numerous occasions. There have been wings at Golden Heights Manor with 20

residents, neither of which are ambulatory, served by only two staff members.

Staff struggle to provide care in such cases and are often called upon for

extended shifts and overtime. The net result is a workforce that is heavily

burdened, as indicated by the number of staff on sick leave, and jeopardized

care for those residents requiring a high-level of personal care. We contend

that with a full staff, the ratio there is still substandard to providing

appropriate care.

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately deploy the appropriate staffing to

deliver acceptable care.

At the

last sitting of the House, a future sitting, my colleague for Mount Pearl North

had referred to health care being in tatters. The minister had stood and

responded and took exception to that.

Just a

few moments to speak on the long-term care at Golden Heights. The minister

proudly stated that we are at and around the national average, which is 3.3

hours per resident per 24 hours.

In a

report in June 2020 by the Royal Society of Canada, which is a consortium of

academics that did the study, the report was entitled,

Restoring Trust: COVID-19 and The Future of Long-Term Care , they had

cited an expert, I believe his name was Harrington, who stated that the minimum

care ought to be 4.1 hours per resident over 24 hours, and this does not include

physician care or the allied services.

So let's

assume we're at the national average in Bonavista. How do we know that the care

is adequate? We listen to the residents, the family members and the staff. The

data would say it all, and the data would say that all is not well.

To make

matters more challenging, for months now the staff on leave were not replaced –

assuming unable to find casual workers to work. So the 3.3 hours per resident on

those days and weekends falls well below three. The government must have the

data; I would love for the data to be presented in the House for all to see.

This has

been well studied, as cited by the Royal Society of Canada, and they cite 100

published reports over the last many years studying the same and they came up

with some scandalous conditions experienced by all. One of the most critical

components they state of quality in nursing homes, the right amount and type of

staffing. A significant problem in Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, the staff

are great but not enough and maybe conceivably not the right mix.

I end

with a citation in that report, and the citation in the report: “The moral test

of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;

those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of

life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

Golden Heights Manor is used as a measure, health care may well be in tatters

and not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Sorry, I

didn't see; the minister wanted to respond to the petition.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite raises an important issue; one, in actual fact, that has already

been identified by Eastern Health with issues particular to Golden Heights.

There is a working group formed already which consists of Eastern Health and the

management of Golden Heights, as well as union representation. They will be

looking at those issues that are peculiar to Golden Heights.

The

Member opposite made reference to a variety of benchmarks. We are actively

looking at those and have been as part of an arrangement organized previously

about a core staffing review.

I would

also say that COVID has thrown all of that back into the blender again, because

we have seen what has happened in other jurisdictions. We have escaped that. So

whatever we've done here has actually worked. What we need to do is find out how

our success has been achieved and to build on it and improve the situation.

I would

be happy, once the group in Bonavista have come to some conclusions, to report

back to the House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition is a petition for Internet infrastructure upgrades required for

essential Internet service.

We, the

undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who are urging

our leaders to ensure that the infrastructure be upgraded in the Northern

Labrador Indigenous communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik,

Postville and Rigolet.

Our

Northern communities have broadband but the required high speeds essential for

online courses is not available on a consistent basis causing the system to

lock-up and to boot students off the system. The aging and inadequate

infrastructure does not support broadband required for online post-secondary and

secondary courses. Therefore, our students are now handicapped at this critical

time in their education path, impacting their ability to succeed if the Internet

systems in each community is not upgraded to provide adequate speed and

reliability.

We can't

stand idly by and watch our students be burdened by this unfair reality of

current circumstance. Therefore, we provide you with this petition asking you to

help ensure the upgrades will be done for our students so that they can have the

same access to Internet services as the rest of the province.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate upgrades to Internet

infrastructure in Northern Labrador Indigenous communities of Nain, Natuashish,

Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet so our students can have the same

access to Internet services as the rest of the province.

I read

this petition several times before; I also met with the minister earlier on in

the spring. I don't think I'm going to take the three minutes that I have

allotted. It's probably the first time. I know you're always calling me on it.

What I

find really disheartening is – I'm not going to age myself, but a long time ago

when I went to university it was just me, my sister and another student from

Makkovik. We were the only three people from Makkovik going to post-secondary.

There was nobody from the community of Postville going to post-secondary.

actually have a picture in front of me; it's a screen capture of a

post-secondary student in Postville right now trying to do online courses. In

her message to me she says: this is what the screen looks like for the past 15

minutes. It's not loading.

Mr.

Speaker, what really bothers me is all the students on the coast of Northern

Labrador in my district, in every community, has to look at screens where their

courses are not loading. This is a recorded lecture video, fall 2020 for a

post-secondary student and she can't access it.

This

petition is just a petition, but it's very, very important because we can't have

our students dropping out. We finally are getting students from all the

communities and now what's happening is we're failing them because they don't

have adequate Internet access.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the

minister for a response, I just want to ask Members to keep the noise level

down. I'm having a hard time hearing the speakers.

The hon.

the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Member for the petition.

It's

similar to ones that I used to make when I was sitting in Opposition, and I

think what that goes to show is that I share the concern that the Member has,

and also reside in a district where connectivity and broadband are still major

issues. In fact, while you were doing your petition, I spoke to the Government

House Leader who talked about how he faces the same issues. It's one that does

not just fly by and I don't empathize or agree with or understand. I certainly

do realize that.

I think

that if 2020 has shown us anything, it's the importance of connectivity going

forward. When we're home, when we're isolated, when our children are out of

school, we realize the importance of connectivity and broadband going forward.

What I would say is that while there have been investments, while there have

been great steps forward, we acknowledge that there is work left to be done.

I will

say, again, like many things, that we aren't the only player in this, that we

still have to deal with the federal government, who I believe have a commitment

and a mandate to work on this as well, as well as working with the companies.

Many of the issues, when they fall just within a provincial jurisdiction it

makes it easier, but when they fall where responsibility lies on multiple

partners, it does make it more difficult. Plus, the fact that we have a huge

land mass that's spread out, I realize the issues that we face there on a

technical basis as well.

What I

would say to the Member is I appreciate the petition, I am listening to the

petition and I'll continue to work with you and all of our colleagues so that

all of our constituents hopefully will not be facing these issues as we move

forward into the future.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each day

I hear from many constituents who contact me about various issues, in particular

about the uncertainty of the future of the oil and gas industry here in this

province.

The

District of Harbour Main consists of many tradeswomen and men that depend on

this industry for the survival of their families, some of whom are on the verge

of losing their homes and everything that they have worked so hard for.

The

Terra Nova FPSO, the West White Rose and the industry as a whole has caused

layoffs with more to come if we don't change the direction the industry is

going.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To immediately

take the necessary action to turn around the oil and gas industry and to ensure

that the tradeswomen and men that are impacted most are able to continue to be

employed in the oil and gas industry right here in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt of the importance of this industry to Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is the economic engine of our province. Over 20,000 direct and

indirect jobs depend on it. We know that 30 per cent of Newfoundland and

Labrador's economy is dependent on this industry. As I've mentioned, the

District of Harbour Main, I see it first-hand in the communities in this

district. I hear about it from the people who live here.

Residents and families are deeply impacted by the loss of jobs and the potential

loss of jobs – hundreds and hundreds of workers in this area alone. This

district is filled with hard-working, educated and experienced individuals who

have worked offshore. And that is the same for the province as a whole.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sad to say that it appears there is such a lack of government

support at both levels, federally and provincially. Our governments have

desperately failed. They failed to give hope to the thousands of our people who

work in this industry and the spin-off industries like construction. The

government's response has been silent. We're waiting and waiting and waiting for

months. We've heard from the CEO of Trades NL and we've heard from the chair of

Noia, they are frustrated as well.

It's

almost as if the oil and gas industry in our province does not exist. Why isn't

our provincial government holding the federal government accountable? Where are

our Liberal MHAs? Why are they silent? Where are Newfoundland and Labrador's

elected Members of Parliament? They should be out ringing the alarm bells.

Mr.

Speaker, I hear from the ministers – both the Minister of Finance, who was

formerly the minister of Natural Resources, and our current new Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology. The language that they use is frustrating:

They've been at the table for quite some time with the federal government;

they're working very closely with industry; they've outlined in multiple

letters. Is that what we can expect? They've been working with many operators,

they've been speaking, but we see nothing.

Mr.

Speaker, we need action. The people of this province are counting on our

government to show leadership and the time has come for them to do that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology, for a response.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

hoping that I might get some leeway on the response time from my colleagues,

because I do plan on providing a response to what I heard.

Now, the

first thing that I would say is that I've sat on the other side, so I fully

realize the purpose of petitions and what they do. I appreciate them and I know

that they are effective and can work. One thing, though, is that you have the

petition itself, and that's one thing, but the second

part is the commentary

that comes after the petition.

appreciate, too, that we have to put on a good show for some of our colleagues,

but I have to tell you I'm a little disappointed that the Member has not

suggested one concrete, structural suggestion to what this is except to – she's

talking about frustrating terms? Well, it's frustrating when the terminology

that they use is they need to provide leadership; they need to be good

government. The reality is that every situation that we're facing here is

different.

I'll

tell you some of the issues that we do face. Number one, this was not either

government that caused the drop in oil prices. It is not either government – and

I'm talking current government, past governments – that caused COVID. This is

something that's not just faced here in our offshore; sadly, this is a global

issue.

I just

mentioned here that companies have lost not a million, not a billion – $1

trillion lost in this industry. Obviously as a province that is reliant on this,

we are going to feel it. There's one thing I don't do –

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the minister have leave

to continue with his response?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no objections,

continue.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

there's one thing I don't doubt, I don't doubt the sincerity of the Member. I

know that she, like I, am hearing it from constituents, hearing it from people.

I empathize with it. I also don't doubt that they're hard working and that

they're feeling it, but what I would say here is one of the suggestions is you

need to take action.

Let's

look at Husky. Let's look at this one particular situation. What they have asked

for – they haven't asked for anything but a cash injection. The reality is that

we, as a province, for many years have been in fiscal dire straits. That, like

the oil companies, has been completely thrown off by the impact of COVID. If you

can tell me one thing I can do to fix that situation, I will listen, I will take

it, but right now I don't think that the Member opposite understands the gravity

or the severity of what they have asked for.

We're

about to see a budget here – the other reality is that I'm not sure what else we

can do. If they can tell me something else I can do about that particular

situation, I would love to do it. The reality is Husky has said themselves it's

not the project, it's not the regulations, it's not the issues, it's not that

government is doing anything wrong, it's that COVID has hurt our liquidity.

COVID has hurt our capital. COVID has hurt our balance sheet and we need to find

a way. We love the project, we love the attractiveness and we love the product

that you have here in this country and in this particular Newfoundland and

Labrador offshore, but the reality is they need a cash injection.

One of

the things that hurt us as a province in our liquidity, the reality is that we

have billions and billions tied up in Muskrat Falls. If that money wasn't gone,

maybe we're having a different conversation, but that money is gone. That's what

I'm saying here.

When it

comes to the other situations, I can tell you that there are conversations

happening.

I'll say

this, I don't mind giving answers but if you want to cut off my leave because

you don't like what you're hearing, you'd better watch what you're asking is

what I would say. If you want me to speak –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

A point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

In this

House we try to be cordial to every Member here and we try to work through the

parliamentary procedures. We gave the minister the opportunity to – he needed

some extra time to answer the question. He got on a rant about something that

happened. That's unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and not in the good intent to

what this House is all about.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 5, first reading of Bill 41.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service Newfoundland and

Labrador, that Bill 41,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read

a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, Bill 41, and that the said bill be

now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Ac To

Amend The Insurance Contracts Act.” (Bill 41)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Insurance Contracts Act. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 10.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under

Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. of the clock, Tuesday,

September 15, 2020.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion has been moved by

the hon. Government House Leader.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 11.

further move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under

Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, September

17, 2020.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion has been moved and

seconded.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Premier, that this House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution relating to the granting of

Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish

to inform the House that I have received a message from Her Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER:

All rise.

message from Her Honour:

Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a

request to appropriate sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending 31 March 2021, by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with

the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the

Constitution Act, 1867 , I recommend

this request to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

______________________________

Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor

Please

be seated.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Government House Leader, that the message together with a bill

be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the

message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of the Whole and that

I should now leave the Chair.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply,

the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are

now considering the related resolution and Bill 40.

Resolution

Be it resolved by the House

of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to

introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying

certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31,

2021 the sum of $1,560,324,100.”

CHAIR:

Shall the resolution carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

The hon.

the Minister of Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The item

before us today is Interim Supply, which provides funding for the government to

operate while the budget process is ongoing. It's very standard that during a

budget process there is a three-month supply and that is what we're asking for

today.

We're

asking for a tremendous sum of money, I agree, $1,560,324,100, that is what the

bill today before you is requesting in Interim Supply.

It was

asked during Question Period, Madam Chair, would we be out of cash or out of

funding by the end of September. I want to make sure I address that again and

say there is an appropriation for six months, that was the appropriation period,

which is really the authority to spend money. It has nothing to do with what we

have in the bank, an ability to pay, but that, basically, we are not allowed to

utilize that money without the authority of this House of Assembly.

today, we're here before the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly does know

the date of the budget, Madam Chair, and we've been very forthright in saying

that it is September 30. It's probably one of the earliest times that we've

actually given a date for the budget. I do want to just talk a little bit about

what Interim Supply is so that people that are listening today – and I'm sure

some Members might be interested in understanding a little bit more about

Interim Supply. Interim Supply is just that. It is interim monies while you're

going through a budget process.

For

clarity and for certainty, allow me to say it's based on the previous year's

budget. So it's not anything new added in or any other available funds to

government. It is based on, clearly, what was reviewed, what was analyzed, what

was determined from the previous year's budget. So it's based on 2019 numbers.

Then also we look at the various periods and the various monies that would be

required and certainly make that determination as to how much that dollar value

would be. I can tell you the Department of Finance is busy. It has to be a very

exact sum. It's based on what is required during a specific period of months to

come.

For

example, when Interim Supply was introduced previously and we have, I'll call

it, Interim Supply number one, which would've been pre-COVID or just before

COVID hit because we were going into a budget process, it was somewhere in the

vicinity of just over $2.6 billion. The reason why that would've been higher, of

course, was because the majority of the funding for the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure comes upfront. And they need the money

available to enter into infrastructure contracts. Then health care, of course,

is a very high expenditure, not an abnormal expenditure and then K-12 and the

education system and Immigration, Skills and Labour, the post-secondary

education requirements.

So this

hasn't been a normal year, Madam Chair. We've had to do a number of Interim

Supplies. The first was done just as COVID became known. We brought to this

House a suggestion to do a six-month because we saw what was happening with

COVID, but the will of the House was to do three months. Then we came back

during the lockdown of our community and had to get a second Interim Supply. We

also did an Interim Supply to allow for some contingency for COVID funding. The

will of the House was, of course, that we have a set fund available, $200

million. Yesterday, I tabled where that money has been spent so that the House

is aware.

Madam

Chair, allow me to also say, because there's been a fair amount of back and

forth over the last couple of days about why three months. I will say that three

months' Supply is quite normal. It allows for the process to unfold, as it

should. It allows, for example, the Estimates process, which is very thorough,

up to 75 hours. It allows for concurrent debate in the House of Assembly. It

also allows for the democratic process.

We've

heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he doesn't know how he's going to

vote on the budget. Maybe it'll be a matter of confidence and he may take down

the government over this. We have to be prudent, we have to be responsible, we

have to be prepared as a government, we have to lead and we have to make sure

that the people of the province are protected.

We want

to make sure the services that are required by the citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the requirements of health care, for example, the requirements of

education, the requirements of seniors looking for their prescriptions, the

requirements of infrastructure are maintained should that happen, Madam Chair.

I'll also say that the federal government also does a variation on the

three-month Supply.

As I

stated during Question Period, and I'll say it again here today, in 2018 – I'm

going to use that because that was probably a normal year – the budget was

released on March 27 that year and 57 days later it was passed on May 22. If you

go back throughout the years – I named it off during Question Period – it could

be up to somewhere around the 50-day mark is what we see as a normal process,

going through and ensuring and allowing the Estimates process is thorough,

allowing a good examination of the spending to ensure that we are doing

everything that is right and proper and procedurally fair.

I will

also say, Madam Chair, that there's been some suggestion by the Leader of the

Opposition that we don't really need Interim Supply, we can just get a special

warrant. Allow me to correct the record. You can't just do a special warrant

under

section 28 of the Financial

Administration Act . That wouldn't be permitted. It has to be within main

Supply. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he may muse that might be the way

it can happen but that is not indeed the letter of the law under the

Financial Administration Act .

Yes,

indeed, we do need to have Interim Supply to allow for the spending of the

money, to allow for the permission to spend the money. We also feel it prudent

and responsible to go for the regular period, and that would allow the fullness

of what needs to occur from a democratic process, the fullness of what needs to

occur to be held to account, to have the books reviewed, to have the questions

answered in Estimates, to go through that whole very important process.

Madam

Chair, I will say that the Leader of the Opposition talked about it has to have

some serious scrutiny. The scrutiny must come. Interim Supply is only based on

the numbers that were previously approved and then again, as we get into the

budget, we could have that serious scrutiny. Estimates are that serious

scrutiny. The possibility of asking the questions, of going line by line, of

holding ministers to account, that is through the Estimates process. I know my

colleague has been through this process a number of times now herself. She's sat

through this and I know that it would be important to ensure that that process

is allowed to be fulfilled.

Now, if

the Opposition in their rightful thinking wants to give the budget to the

government earlier than that, that can certainly be arranged and we wouldn't

need a longer Interim Supply; but in the fullness and the context of ensuring

that we have the accountability, the questioning, the rightful review, it is

very important that we allow for that three-month process. We may not need it.

We may not need it, and that would be fine that we may not need that three-month

Supply but, as soon as the budget is passed, Interim Supply rests.

So there

is no real reason why they would not give us three months, unless they're

thinking politically and I can't answer to that. As I said earlier, I would

think that today Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are really reflective of their

concerns around COVID, their concerns around their jobs, their concerns around

their futures, so I would think Interim Supply would be pro forma. It would just

happen because that is the way we should conduct ourselves.

They can

use up all their time allotted to them to do Interim Supply, or they can choose

to make some amendments to Interim Supply. I will say that the people who are

currently doing the budget, working very hard to have a budget for September 30,

which is only a couple of weeks away, I will say, are the same people who would

have to change the Interim Supply bill.

I will

say that we have diligent and hard-working members of the Department of Finance.

They're working very, very hard to have a budget by the end of September. We are

only, I think, either the second or third jurisdiction in Canada to have a

budget during COVID. Think about that. We are only the second or third

jurisdiction during COVID to have a budget.

I have

to say that I'm proud of the fact that we will be having a budget; we will go

through that scrutiny. We're six months into this year, we thought it was

responsible to do that. I have said repeatedly that I don't see any surprises in

this budget. I don't see any reason for the Opposition to not support it. They

will make their own deliberations around that. It does reflect priorities, I

think, that the people of the province require. I think it's very important for

all of us to reflect on what is happening in our province, what is happening in

our world and understand its impact on our day-to-day operations of government.

So the

question becomes: What is Interim Supply used for? It's used – and I think they

said it upfront – to ensure smooth operations of government while we're in the

budget process. Because, again, while we may have cash on hand, we cannot spend

it unless we have what's called an appropriation or permission of the House of

Assembly in order to be able to do that.

Think

about it this way – I'll use my colleague behind me, a new minister who's done

an excellent job answering questions on Digital Government and Service NL, and

very proud to have her as a Member of Cabinet, but Motor Registration Division,

Vital Statistics, MyGovNL, all that would require Interim Supply to keep going.

The Public Procurement Agency; the Public Service Commission; Transportation and

Infrastructure, roadwork, for example; Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, the

work that's being done in those areas; Immigration, Skills and Labour, of

course, the Employment Services. Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation require

spending.

I will

say, Madam Chair, Education, K to 12, post-secondary education, we're just back

to school and I want to congratulate the Minister of Education and

post-secondary education for the tremendous work he's doing. It's tumultuous

times. I know that people have worked very hard to ensure that back to school is

functioning as best it can during these very difficult times.

Health

care, front-line services for COVID, we need an appropriation; we need

permission to be able to spend that money.

I would

say to this House, Interim Supply isn't really about politics. It's about the

proper functioning of government. I have given to this House when a budget will

be brought down. I have actually put a motion before this House today, to have

it there on the books so you know that is the day. I've said that is the day we

will have a budget, we will.

I think

the Leader of the Opposition talked about it as an extravagant request. Again,

Madam Chair, I will say, how does he view the right to health care as an

extravagant expectation? How does he view income support clients as an

extravagant expectation? How is that, under the view of this Member, an

extravagant expectation?

I would

say it's a natural progression of government. It has been scrutinized. It is

using the 2019 budget process. It does not give new spending. We are about to

have a budget on September 30. As quick as we get that budget, Interim Supply

rests, Madam Chair. I would say that it's time for us to move forward and it's

time for us to move to the next part of this process, which is the budget.

I will

say this, Madam Chair, as I wind down my final moments: This government, the

Liberal government, has worked very, very diligently to keep costs under

control. They've only risen in the last five years by about 2.5 per cent, and

that's even less than inflation. I will say that during the PC tenure, the time

they had in government, it raised over 60 per cent. I think our fiscal

responsibility, our prudence, our diligence has been proven and I will say to

this House, I think it's important that we get to the budget and move forward

and to give Interim Supply the three months it is required.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's

nice, I suppose, to speak about a money bill, the Interim Supply bill. It gives

you a bit more latitude, and I guess during these times it's always good to have

that ability to move off. You're zeroed in on one topic; it's nice to have a

broader conversation because there are an awful lot of issues facing our

province. There would be too many to list. There's not a lot of time to list

them all, obviously.

The

Minister of Finance, I listened closely to a lot of her commentary, and

respectfully, if we just went the way everything is rosy, we would just say,

yes, well have it all. Here's your budget, here's your Interim Supply and we

will see you whenever. It's not as simple as that.

Minister, respectfully, we have a job to do over here. The Leader of the

Opposition may say this or may say that, we all may say things. We have a job to

do. Realistically, we do the job for Liberal supporters because when you're in

government, Opposition plays a role for everyone in this province. It keeps a

government accountable. No matter who is in power, Opposition does have a role.

You're called the Loyal Opposition for a reason.

The

Loyal Opposition is meant to keep government to account. Expenditures,

decisions, actions they're doing, actions they're not doing – that's what we do.

We don't always disagree with government because we want to disagree with

government. There are times, believe it or not, we'll actually agree with some

things. Not everything, but there are a lot of things. That makes us unique,

because we're different parties, we have different beliefs, we stand for

different principles. Overall, we all share some common concerns for the

province: budgetary issues and our oil and gas industry. I think we all feel

that.

We feel

there are probably more things that could be done, probably not been done enough

to our liking. We operate by different philosophies, so we'd like things done

differently. Right now, we're into such a predicament with our oil and gas we

feel that now is the time to do – actions have to match words. Words alone are

not going to cut it.

actually have the federal minister of Natural Resources, one of our local MPs in

this province. That's pretty good. Most times if you have a federal MP sitting

at the Cabinet table that represents your province, that's a good thing. You

look at Ottawa, you look at the federal government and they've given billions

and billions and billions and billions of dollars to Quebec. They've given

billions out west. They've given billions to Ontario. We're on our knees now. We

need help.

Where is

the federal government? Where's our federal minister? Where's that strong

relationship? Where's the other MPs? I don't hear anything. The minister said

politics. This is politics. We're in the House of Assembly, what do you expect.

Politics is everywhere. Not only in this House, it's everywhere. Go up to a

minor hockey arena and you'll find politics. This issue is serious and it needs

attention. Drinking a cup of tea and having a chat, a folksy conversation, is

not going to solve our oil and gas problems. That's all I see. I've seen it

numerous times.

Unfortunately, right now we have this new shiny Premier, so we thought. He comes

in and he checks a lot of boxes and he's doing well. Everyone thinks – well,

everyone doesn't know. They're trying to connect the dots. All we hear is

platitudes and everything is wonderful and we're going to work together, we're

in this together. That's not putting bread on the table. That's not paying

people's bills. That's not what people want to hear. People want to hear

decisiveness, make a decision. Oh, that wasn't my responsibility, the Clerk's

responsible for that hiring. I can't overturn contracts.

You're

the Premier of the province, you can void every contract out there in this

province. Every single one. You may have a penalty to pay, there's no way you

cannot void a contract. You're the leader of –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

I'm getting a few comments.

It's working now, yeah.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

You're the leader of the

province, you can do as you please. Don't pass the buck, it stops on the eighth

floor. His name is over the door, we want him – not we. I'll say this in another

form, too, people have to realize we're – no, that's the Liberals, this is PCs

and NDPs and independents, but we have one Premier. He's all of our Premier.

Whether we wear the same stripe party-wise, but he's one Premier. He's our

Premier.

We're

looking for our Premier to show leadership with our federal minister and our one

and only prime minister, who happens to be our prime minister, to stand up.

Stand up, tell us something. Don't say you're concerned and you're upset and

you're worried. Everyone feels that. You're only wasting time. That's not what

people want. That's not what the media want. That's not what we want, that's not

what people want. That's not what the thousands of people who are out of jobs

want, and I say that with full sincerity and honesty. I'm frustrated by

listening to that. I'm expecting more answers.

You go

last week, about a week or so ago, to find out that the new mental health

hospital, $40 million over, extra. The winning bid is $40 million more and it's

going to take them an extra year. I did discover the scoring matrix, that counts

for 60 per cent of the scoring but there was a change in plans, too. There was a

consensus decision made. So what you can't get through the front door sometimes

you might have to go through the back door. We don't know. We won't know if

that's the case until we get the information. We're looking for information to

verify that.

The

minister then comes on the news that evening and he says we're getting caught up

in the money. We're getting caught up in $40 million. Like, it's not that big a

deal. There's no one who really cares.

It would

be nice to take that $40 million and probably give to the offshore to try to get

a few people back to work, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be the right place to

spend the $40 million? No, no. But don't get caught up, we're getting caught up

in the tens of millions. It's gibberish again; the Opposition are making up

stories. It's not a story, it's an actual fact.

I've

asked him, and I'll keep asking again and I'll keep asking here in this House,

show us the documents. And if we haven't got a case, I'll be the first to say

fair game, it was done the right way. We don't know that.

There

was a fairness advisor the Minister of Finance alluded to yesterday, but I only

had about 40 seconds to respond and I had about 20 different angles I wanted to

go on. But that fairness advisor is hired by government. You're hired to be a

fairness advisor, so who's paying your cheque? I'm not knocking the fairness

advisor, I'm being realistic. We're all in that boat. The one who's paying your

cheque – you're hiring that person; that needs to be done. That's not

independent. The minute you're on the payroll you're not independent. It's a

pure, full stop. It removes all independence.

No, they

said, it appears to be fine. Well, we think it doesn't appear to be fine, but

we'll never know that until we get the documents. We can't get that until after

financial close. So after you lock the barn up. It's too late when she's empty,

and that's our problem.

Then we

hear commentary across the way and we're told, like, we know better than you.

How dare you ask us? What are you doing asking us these questions? Where are

your solutions?

Your

government, this crowd of government, we gave the Minister of Industry, Energy

and Technology, we gave him a bit of leave to answer our petition question but

he couldn't resist going down the gutter. He couldn't resist. Yet, they've been

in charge of Muskrat now since 2015, two elections ago, but then the term today

is Muskrat, Muskrat, Muskrat; blame, blame, blame. Sure, I don't care, I wasn't

there when it was sanctioned. I'm here now representing the people. This

foolishness of getting on.

Do you

realize why you're in a minority situation? That's one of your reasons. People

got sick of listening to the gibberish, the rubbish. That's all we were

listening to. That's all the general public listened to. The blame game, the

blame game.

The

Minister of Education, that's all he's done. He's 25 years here, the last five

years he's blamed everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Blame, that's all he does is

blame.

Our

issue is that's not going to solve the problems of this province. That's not

going to get us where we need to get; there's nothing more evident.

You have

your oil and gas industry on its knees. Rotational workers are ready, they got

some leeway made, which I'll give them some credit there, but they are working

offshore and they're coming home. They got a bit of leeway. They have a

seven-day quarantine now and then some testing; yet, we have workers from

outside of the Atlantic bubble coming in, working on sites next to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with no quarantine involved, but then they go

back to the hotel and have to quarantine. It's too late after everyone are

infected.

You had

a situation last week, 6,000 children – I would like to say it's more than 7,500

children – without a school bus. We had to live with that a few weeks ago, then

there was a big outcry. Ottawa kicked in some money. All of a sudden we have $10

million worth of school buses; buses for everyone, but we don't have them yet.

They're coming along and it is improving.

There

was a plan. Concerns were raised by the school district months earlier, but that

plan was not accepted. That plan was parked there and that plan actually covered

a lot of good information. Actually, that plan's concerns came to raise their

ugly heads three weeks before school opened. The exact things in that plan were

what come – busing, the social distancing, yet I have schools up there with 36

children in the classroom, one window working. I'm working on it, but they're

still there. They're almost a week in now. Is that preparedness?

There

are lots of other schools we hear. Out in Ascension Collegiate is another issue

we've heard. We've heard from other schools. I have video of a child sat on the

floor of a bus. But we're doing great. Listen and make the right decisions for

the right reasons. Government were given that report back in May or June, but

no, the minister says today it didn't go the Cabinet room. They just ignored the

report. Why?

You look

at that repot, that report raised a lot of the same concerns we're dealing with

now, but then we jam pack it in three weeks ahead of school opening. Parents are

screaming out because they're nervous, they're frustrated, they're concerned. We

are in a pandemic. It's not abnormal for a parent to be concerned, sending their

child to a school, not knowing the safety protocols, not knowing what they're

sending their child out to. As a parent, I'd be very concerned too. Thank God my

children are pass the school age, but I would raise concerns. I think anyone in

this House that has a child would say the same thing.

What's

wrong with raising it? That's a valid argument. But what do you get? Nothing. I

have children that walk to school; I have constituents that are on the news

every second night about the busing issues. It's still not gone away. Great news

now, we're down to about 4,000 without a bus.

argument is, there should never be a child without a bus. I've always stood for

that. I've always believed the 1.6 busing policy should go. I do not believe any

child should ever be left behind. I don't care, I've said it in this House and

anyone that's ever listened to me, it's something that I stand by, I live by,

I'll never back away from. I think it's out to lunch. Unless you live next door

to a school, fine, but otherwise you should not have to walk to school. I don't

agree with it. I never have and I never will.

People

pay taxes. We're all contributing to society. Why do you pick one over another

because of where your house is located? It makes absolutely no sense. There's

not a parent in this province that has ever agreed with it. This government has

been given a golden opportunity over and over and over again. I'll be the first

to say, previous administrations, I was not a part of those, but I'm part of

this one and it's in our Blue Book and it's something that we're committed to.

It's something that I'm committed to and my colleagues are committed to. We'll

go.

You've

rationalized, you've reasoned. This has been going on for years in this House,

but does anyone listen? No. You get it threw back it you today, it's insulting

our intelligence.

The

Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and critic for Finance outlined the exact

days it took to pass a budget, the sitting days it took to pass a budget. I

thought he hit the nail right on the head of listing off the days. We're talking

about sitting days.

The

Minister of Finance then, in the wisdom of they're smarter than us again, told

us the calendar days. When you count the days when people are travelling to

Florida and out of province, pre-COVID, again that's nonsense. That's not what

we say. Ninety days to pass a budget – no, you don't need 90 days to pass a

budget. You don't need 60 days to pass a budget. We know how many sitting days.

We're talking sitting days. Let's talk and compare apples to apples, but we get

this constant reminder we know better than you.

I have

news for them, the people of this province know better than all of us in this

House a lot of times and they don't really appreciate that stuff. They see

through it, but for some reason, this administration in particular – I know all

governments sometimes get a bit of that complex, but this crowd can never get

past the fact that they know better than everybody. That is not the case.

Then we

have this new Premier and he's out there, he thinks he's saying all the right

words and he's bouncing around. You know what, that's growing pretty thin too.

What do you stand for? He's eventually going to have to sit across there and

listen to us ask him point-blank, he's going to have to stand in his place to

answer it. Telling everyone that the world is full of butterflies and pots of

honey is not going to cut it in this House and not going to cut it in this

province, so he better start doing a bit of homework and read up on what people

want to hear. Not this the world is so wonderful and look how blue the sky is –

and I like that colour blue, Madam Chair.

That's

what we don't need. We want someone in here that's going to give answers. Do you

know what? They don't have to be popular. Have the guts to give answers. Right

now, we're in a time where sometimes hard decisions may be what people are

looking for. I know people around who say tough decisions are needed.

If you

come out and you give the cold, hard facts – people want honesty and people want

facts. I think if you're honest and straight up with the people – my motto is

you can never go wrong being honest and straight up. Maybe the Premier needs to

stop getting off his platitudes and start speaking facts to the people of the

province.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I'd like

to remind everybody if you could please keep our conversations down. It is hard

to hear and as we know we have the health restrictions in place with regard to

speaking moistly. Can I kindly ask everyone to keep those conversations

respectful?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I heard

the questions today from the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port about the

length of the budget. Yesterday, in teleconference with the Deputy Premier,

myself and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands were informed that the

average time it takes to do a budget is five to six weeks. So if you go the

limit, six weeks, that's 24 days. You take away the six days which are

Wednesdays, which you just have Estimates, you're talking about 16, 17 days to

do the budget. You can get a budget done in five weeks. This stuff is going to

take two, three, four months. It's just not on – not on.

The

average time, since I've been in this Legislature, to do a budget is five weeks.

I just want to make that clear. I heard all this wrangling today – and I say to

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, you're right; it usually only takes

about 20 sitting days to do a budget in this House, because then they'll have

Estimates in the morning and the nighttime.

There's

another point that's missing out of this about the timelines for a budget. While

we're speaking here now, it's taken off the 75 hours. So this idea that the

Budget Speech starts when you go with the budget and this is the 75 hours, all

this in Interim Supply, this time is –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Nine gone.

MR. JOYCE:

Nine gone. So this time we use for Interim Supply is taken off the budget. So

this idea that you need 75 hours, it's just – let's put the facts on the table

because if we're going to go with three months, if we're going to go with one

month, if we're going to go with two months, but let's put the facts on the

table so we can make an informed decision on it.

That's

the idea. Is this saying, well, is it going to take three months to do a budget?

Is it going to take four months? Is it going to take 70 days? The average time

is 20 days to do a budget from when it's put in the House to when it's complete,

Estimates included. That's the facts.

The

Deputy Premier confirmed that yesterday to us. So for the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port, you are correct, the average time is about 20 days

to do a budget in this House.

MS. COADY:

Sitting days.

MR. JOYCE:

Exactly what I said: sitting days. Five weeks is 20 sitting days; four a day and

you do Estimates.

Anyway,

the idea of Interim Supply – and people know, it's not so much the money is in

the bank, it's to give the authority to spend the money. I don't think there is

any person in this House, Liberal, PC or NDP who wants to see this system shut

down. It's not going to happen, so why don't we come to a compromise? Why don't

we slice it off and say instead of going three months, we'll go two months, or

even go six weeks to get it done?

This

idea that we have to have one or we have to have the other – everybody can

accuse me of sometimes being a bit roughshod, but I always compromise. There is

always a compromise. I go to every Member that I've ever dealt with, there is

always a compromise.

There

are people out there right now as we speak, and I just use the people that we

talk about, the people in health care, the people in long-term care, they want

us to move forward with some issues. There are great issues on both sides to

this House and here we are wrangling how long is it going to take, should we go

for three months, should we go for two months. I mean if we got to split it down

the middle and go for a month and a half, two months, let's do it. Let's get it

done. Let's get it on the plate so we can sit down and start discussing the

budget.

Also,

talking about when the budget is going to come down, why September 30? We heard

back in March sometime that it would soon be ready; in June, July ready to go,

but now we're going to September. Look at the timing for September 30. It's on a

Wednesday. The budget is out. Thursday, the minister usually goes off and does

speeches in the Chamber of Commerce, then we're going up – the first day we're

going to debate the budget is election day. What great timing.

Let's

put the cards on the table here. There are a lot of things in the budget and

even in Interim Supply and I'm sure the people in Humber - Bay of Islands are

going to appreciate also. There are a lot of things in the past budget, in the

first Interim Supply that was approved. I say to the Government House Leader the

work that's done on the South Shore 450, Bay of Islands, now that the roads are

good and safe, that came from the Interim Supply.

There

are other things where money was spent in good ways, but we have to find some

way that we're going to work this out so we can get this moving, so we can get

back and hopefully the budget, September 30, we can get it in as soon as

possible, start debating. Then the budget is only going to be for what, five

months, four months? That's it, and then the budget cycle starts again in

November.

The

process for a budget starts in November this year. I remember one year I think

it was March 27 the budget was brought in. So it's not a long time that we're

even talking about if we can get Interim Supply.

I look

at some of the good things, even from the pas