PDF Version

June 16, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 40

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave;

Conception Bay South; Placentia - St. Mary's; Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans; and

Lake Melville.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly is great – oh, that's right, sit down. Sorry about that. Okay, it

certainly is great to be back.

Today I

would like to recognize the people of the Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District

who stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic, public health emergency. When

everyone was directed to stay home and stay safe, volunteer first responders,

along with many essential workers, had to suit up and go to work everyday to

provide services for our communities.

I would

like to thank our volunteer firefighters of Harbour Grace, Upper Island Cove,

Spaniard's Bay and Bay Roberts for continuing to serve and protect, our nurses,

as well as our public and private health care providers, for risking their own

health in order to do their essential duties.

To the

many private sector employees who stepped up to ensure our local grocery stores

were open and available from Bay Roberts through Conception Bay North region. A

big thank you to the women and men who continued to ensure that food and

beverages were safely available through a drive-through window or a curbside

pickup. We are grateful for our fish harvesters, plant workers and all industry

employees for continuing to support our local economy.

everyone in the Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District for doing their part,

thank you.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

pleasure to recognize a special group of ladies who during this pandemic have

stepped up and gave back to our community by creating a group known as the

Masked Bandits. These ladies make and donate masks that are then placed in a bag

outside a residence free for the taking.

This

group was started by a constituent of mine, Ms. Jo-Lynn Bragg Butt. When Jo-Lynn

realized there was a need, she created a Facebook group and connected with many

of her quilter friends and the rest was history, Mr. Speaker.

This

group has made and given away over 3,000 masks to date. Some individuals and

organizations they've supplied are the RNC, funeral homes, chemo/radiation

patients, seniors' homes, pharmacies, nurses and medical clinics.

addition to Jo-Lynn, other members of the Masked Bandits are: Donalda Murley,

Tracey Parsons, Shelly Goodyear, Darlene Hiscock, Sharon Peach, Denise Petten,

Lori Eason, plus mask donations from Maureen Harvey, Charmaine Woodland, Pat

Burton, Kris Warren and Anne Haines.

The bag

on Jo-Lynn's step has grown that much they have created an initiative called the

Masked Forward initiative, where there's a sign with an email for people to

contact the group for info on how to donate. Their plan is that after the

pandemic is over donate any monies to another great cause.

One

final message, Mr. Speaker, from the Masked Bandit is Stay Safe Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, many of us here

in the House of Assembly have relatives or friends who are veterans and who have

served in one of the World Wars: Korea, Afghanistan or in peacekeeping roles

overseas.

Throughout Newfoundland and Labrador many communities have a memorial that

honours the fallen and those who served in conflicts. The Sacred Heart World War

I Memorial located in Placentia's town square was unveiled on June 3, 1920 in

memory of the young men from the Placentia parish who lost their lives in the

Great War of 1914 to 1918.

This

memorial is unique. It was the first monument erected in Newfoundland and

Labrador to honour those who served in World War I. On June 3, 2020, the Royal

Canadian Legion Branch 33 commemorated the 100th anniversary of the unveiling

and honoured those remembered by placing a wreath at the memorial.

encourage everyone who visits Placentia, to view the memorial and remember those

served, and I thank the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 33 in Placentia for their

work in helping us remember these brave soldiers.

“We will

remember them.”

Thank

you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I

would like to recognize a very dedicated volunteer and resident of Badger, Mrs.

Ann Young. Mrs. Young has been a pillar in the volunteer community of Badger for

more than 20 years. Ann is a mom of two and a grandmother of seven

grandchildren. She is a member of the Badger Fireettes. She is a member of the

Sacred Heart Parish Church Committee. She heads all fundraisers in the community

and thrives on helping people in need.

Currently, Ann is working on ensuring the kindergartens and Grade 12s have some

sort of graduation before moving on during this time when grads would normally

be in full swing.

She

believes in leaving nobody behind and nobody out. Ann can always be counted on

if someone has any tragic loss in their family or in the community. She is the

first to be there to start organizing and implementing what needs to be done.

Ann is

the head of the breakfast program for Avoca and has recently won volunteer of

the year for the beautiful community of Badger.

Please

join me in recognizing Ann Young for always going above and beyond with her

selfless acts of kindness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, the Special Olympics movement lost one of its most popular and

successful athletes last week.

Gary

Thompson has long served as an important ambassador for the Howling Huskies team

in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. His room is a shrine to the movement, displaying the

over 90 medals he won at local and provincial meets, and the hundreds of pins

and other souvenirs from people and places he had been in his 58 years, each

meticulously organized, remembered and displayed with pride.

Gary

passed away suddenly while doing what he enjoyed the most, walking around the

community with his best friend Harris Wolfrey. The two of them were truly a

mobile icon in town because of the important role they played as greeters at the

NorthMart, delivering or picking up packages for his mother Pearl, or just

looking out for everyone around them.

The

celebration of Gary's life was held on Saturday with hundreds tuning in to watch

many people to express their condolences to his family, friends, fellow athletes

and coaches with the Howling Huskies.

Mr.

Speaker, we all shared different stories with the same conclusion. We will all

miss a fine man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to speak about efforts we are making to help

municipalities as they navigate through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have long been known to support one another

during difficult times. As we all learn to live with COVID-19 for the

foreseeable future, government will continue our support to communities in our

province. We will build on our strong relationship with Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador to bring the best solutions to our community leaders.

We are

proceeding with our regular Municipal Capital Works projects and we are

currently in the process of notifying communities so they can prepare to begin

construction on their projects. We are also proceeding to notify recipients of

the next round of Investing in Canada Plan projects.

Mr.

Speaker, recently we announced new measures to help municipalities and local

service districts, introducing including temporary local preference provision to

the Public Procurement Regulations .

This process presents a more timely process for municipalities, which results in

quotes being obtained in approximately a week compared to a request for

proposals process, which can take up to two months. The department also has a

dedicated procurement team to assist with conducting of these limited calls over

the next few months.

I was

also pleased last week to join the federal Minister of Infrastructure and

Communities, in announcing more than $31.5 million under the Gas Tax Fund to

Newfoundland and Labrador for the 2020-21 fiscal year. In addition to the more

than $21.7 million for 276 communities, there is also $8.9 million for

Provincial Waste Management Strategy, as well as funding for the Water and

Wastewater Initiative. With the impact of COVID-19 on our communities, it was

important municipalities received the full amount of the Gas Tax Fund upfront

this year so they can continue to strengthen services and build critical

infrastructure.

Mr.

Speaker, now, more than ever, we need to be there for all of our communities and

their residents as we continue to live with COVID-19.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like

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

Mr.

Speaker, we recognize that these are difficult and challenging times, and we are

pleased to see measures put in place to support communities and municipal

leaders across the province as they continue their work to provide services

during this pandemic. Municipalities and their leaders deal with a wide variety

of important issues such as drinking water, fire and emergency services,

infrastructure, waste water and waste management, to name a few. It is very

important that the work to deliver and improve these services in our communities

can continue.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank all of our individuals who work and volunteer

with municipal governments and local service districts across the province for

their support and their continued commitment to making our communities stronger

and safer for our residents here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

It's

great to see that the usual sources of funding for municipalities will not be

disrupted and that the Gas Tax Fund will be paid upfront. However,

municipalities have had the loss of extra expenses as a result of COVID-19. They

have lost revenue that they count on, such as from recreation facilities,

community hall rentals and other services they provide. I hope the minister will

come up with a plan to help them get through these times and this loss of

revenue.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Due to

the tremendous efforts of our government, we now have a new regional assessment

process that maintains the strong protection of the offshore environment while

significantly shortening timelines for exploration drilling program approval – a

major consideration for companies looking to make global investment decisions.

The new

regional assessment is a significant improvement over the previous process,

which caused considerable delays in issuing authorizations for offshore

exploration activities that typically take between 30 and 60 days to complete.

This was

largely of a result of a decision made in 2010 to move the responsibility for

offshore environmental assessments form the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) to the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency (CEAA).

Through

the new process, approval timelines have decreased by about 90 per cent – from

900 to as little as 90 days.

Advance 2030 , we outlined the future

of the offshore oil and gas industry, of which there is tremendous potential –

with over 650 leads and prospects identified to date, eight new entrants over

the last number of years, and resource potential of 52.2 billion barrels of oil

and close to 200 trillion cubic feet of gas in just 9 per cent of our province's

offshore.

The

regional assessment process allows us to be globally competitive while ensuring

an effective environmental regime.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

The

announcement that new exploration activities can fall under the regional

environmental assessment and that approvals will now be granted within 60 is

good news for our oil and gas industry.

Mr.

Speaker, exploration is one of the most important activities for our oil and gas

industry, and perhaps for our entire province's economic viability. Exploration

is exciting. It is where oil is discovered. It helps us to envision a prosperous

future for everyone. Greater exploration increases our probability of

discoveries, which in turn will increase current and future employment in the

industry.

However,

Mr. Speaker, we all must realize that the oil and gas sector is a global sector

and is negatively impacted by the downturn in the world economy. Oil companies

have less cash flow for investment in their exploration than in previous years.

Our offshore industry will have to compete globally for these investment

dollars. Because of this, we must do everything to make our province as

attractive as possible for exploration. The regional environmental assessment

will help, but it's not enough. The federal government must immediately

implement incentives for exploration. Anything less is a failure of our federal

government to support our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

caucus and I support the responsible, sustainable and environmentally sound

development of our natural resources. I note the minister's statement highlights

the reduced timeline for regional assessments, but falls short of elaborating on

the – I quote – strong protections of our offshore environment. It would be a

travesty if there were another offshore oil spill because of these changes.

Perhaps companion regulations proposing stiffer penalties for environmental

contamination are needed, or maybe now is the time to establish an independent

offshore safety and environmental authority.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, 120 business

leaders, including from this province, signed an open letter asking governments

to ease travel restrictions which are too broad or unnecessary.

Does the

Premier intend to make a detailed response to these leaders?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when I received

the letter from the business leaders, I think there were 50 names that were

attached to that, many of those people that I would reach out to on a regular

basis and they would have lots of discussion on various issues around the

economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. The envelope on the outside said it was

private and confidential, and it was not something at that point in time that

seemed to be something that would require a reply. Since that, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to let the Member know that I've spoken with a number of those

people. I will see what a formal reply to that letter would be.

Moving

from Alert Level 3 direct to one, Mr. Speaker, I think the public health

officials are taking the concerns of public health and safety of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into consideration. Yesterday, I think the

chief medical officer of health made an indication that she would move from

Alert Level 3 to Alert Level 2, not directly to Alert Level 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Premier's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The

Minister of Finance told us that it's impossible to do a month-by-month

accounting of the books of the province.

Is he

telling the House that his officials are not doing a monthly budget monitoring

process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each

department, Mr. Speaker, monitor within the budget allocations that they're

given. The deputy and ministers in those departments keep an eye on the

allocations as provided to those departments. There are literally months of work

go into preparing a budget for the province. I know that officials when they're

doing a budget spend many, many, many nights here well into the night preparing

a budget. I will say that it is impossible to do the same amount of work on a

month-by-month basis to essentially provide a budget to the Legislature every

single month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Judges

Salary and Benefits Tribunal report was handed to the Minister of Justice on

June 4, 2019, and is now based on badly outdated economic and fiscal

information.

Why did

the minister take a whole year to bring the report to the House for a vote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the question.

As the

Member would know, these judges' tribunals are for a period of four years. This

one in question was actually for 2017-2021. The interviews for this didn't even

happen until 2019, which is par for the course for these. In fact, when we came

in in 2015 we took one over that had started – supposed to be 2013 – started in

2014. So the fact is they're based on a four-year period. I want to thank the

tribunal for the work they've done. I look forward to debating it this

afternoon.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister: Can you confirm that an individual arrived in St. John's last night,

entered a shelter in St. John's and had to be tested for COVID after showing

symptoms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I can

indeed confirm that the border controls we have in place worked well last night.

An individual was identified at the airport as not having an isolation plan, and

being a vulnerable person he was placed. There was then some question about

COVID testing. He had a test, it was negative, and he is now being housed

through the vulnerable persons' working group, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, on April 21,

2020, departments and agencies, boards and commissions – ABCs – were directed to

commence budget monitoring process in May and every month thereafter.

Will the

minister table the projections that the Department of Finance has received

before the House closes this week?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

speak with officials in the department to see what information is available and

I'll provide a response back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the people of

our province can be very proud that they have flattened the curve, but what we

need now is government to govern and deal with the financial fiscal crisis

facing our province.

Can the

minister give this House an estimate of the deficit, based on the projections he

now has in his Finance Department, to the nearest hundred million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did

provide an update for the close out of the 2019-20 year. Even that, Mr. Speaker,

because of the changes in calculations and change in information, took a couple

of weeks to put together.

I know

that officials in the Department of Finance now are working on the budget

details for a new budget, Mr. Speaker, and that will take a considerable amount

of time. I know that not every Member of the Legislature has a full

understanding or a full appreciation of the numbers of hours and the commitment

put forward by officials in the Department of Finance when preparing a budget,

but, Mr. Speaker, I've indicated to the Legislature that when that budget it

ready we'll bring it to the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, based on the

information that the minister has given already publicly to date, it looks like

the deficit projection for 2020-21 could be the highest deficit in the history

of our province.

Minister, the point here is that the people of our province deserve to know what

you already know about the fiscal situation. You have the projections, we have

the letter that the Clerk sent to the departments and ABCs. We just want you to

share that information.

Will you

table the projections here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe we have been absolutely forthright with this Legislature, with the

people of the province. This is going to be a very difficult year on the

finances of the province, Mr. Speaker. What I do know, I'll tell the Member

today, is that officials in the department are working at putting those figures

together. I'm not going to throw a number at the wall without having the details

to provide. I will provide the details as soon as they're ready.

I do

know, and what we've been forthright with, is that revenues have all been

impacted, expenses have been impacted. COVID-19 and spiraling oil prices has had

a devastating impact on the finances and budgeting of this province. We've been

forthright about that. We'll continue to be forthright, and we'll provide the

accurate details when we have accurate details to provide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the projected deficit for last year, I think without the Hibernia

dividend, was around $1.1 billion. The minister has already said there's $500

million projected shortfall in the oil revenue this year. He also told us at the

fiscal update that $400 million had been removed from revenue related to two

weeks of COVID in March and one week of Snowmageddon. So it's not hard to add a

bunch of numbers together and come up with the fact that we're facing a

significant deficit well over $2 billion.

I ask

the minister once again: Will he table the projections in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite may take a fancy to throwing darts at a wall in the dark. I'm

not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite may take a fancy to

insulting the bureaucrats and officials in the Department of Finance, who I

believe on an annual basis come literally within 1 per cent of a forecast when

they put a budget forward.

believe they need an opportunity to put accurate numbers, to the greatest degree

possible, forward in the form of a budget. Even that, Mr. Speaker, when we do it

– because of the uncertainty and the unknowns that still remain with COVID and

oil prices – probably won't be as accurate this year as in other years, but I

believe they need an opportunity to do their work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, it has been over seven months since Jonathan Henoche died at Her

Majesty's Penitentiary after a reported violent altercation.

I ask

the minister: Can he update the family of the deceased and the public on the

status of the investigation, including the cause of death?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for what is a very important question. Unfortunately, I don't have

any updated details to provide to this House at this time. What I will say is we

allow the investigations to take their time and let the investigators take all

the time that they need to do this right.

What I

can say, though, is that the family will be made aware of this as soon as we

know, and, obviously, the House will be made aware as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the

family are involved and concerned, as well as members of the public. Surely,

seven months is enough time to have some indication of the outcome of this

investigation.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the third death at Her Majesty's Penitentiary since August

Is the

minister concerned that there are systemic issues which ought to be addressed in

an investigation and which should be made public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you very much.

Again, I

appreciate the fact that we all want investigations to be done quickly, but more

importantly, I think, we want them to be done right. Therefore, I will not be

placing any pressure on anybody to do this, and therefore allowing for something

to be overlooked and not be made available in a report of this importance.

As it

relates to systemic issues at HMP, as the Member knows, we had a comprehensive

report done that was brought some time ago. In fact, we've had many changes that

have already been made since that time. One of them was the announcement of the

new penitentiary, which I do think will solve some of the problems that we face

when it comes to corrections.

One

thing I will note is that in the time we were away from this House we celebrated

Corrections Week. I want to thank corrections officers for everything they've

done before, then and now during these difficult times.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Yes, Mr. Speaker,

we're aware of the recommendations, but the only recommendation that he

references is one of many recommendations that were made by the Jesso report and

which certainly need to be addressed.

Mr.

Speaker, the chief judge has described the backlog in our court system as a

system set to burst.

I ask

the minister: What is the plan to deal with the thousands of judicial

proceedings that have been cancelled over the past three months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you very much and,

again, another very important question.

No doubt

the court system was overburdened by COVID like virtually every system not just

in this province but across the country. What I can say is that we have worked

with the courts to see that they get things back on track as fast as possible.

What I

will remind the Member, though, is that they are independent. We cannot direct

them as to how the courts are run; we cannot tell them how to do their jobs.

What we can do is provide support and therefore we've worked with them, the Law

Society, Crown attorneys, defence counsel – everybody – to make sure things get

back on track and get done safely.

One

thing I am very happy to say is that as of right now we have had no Jordan

concerns brought forward to us by anybody. That's a very good thing to hear.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Placentia

West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, many parents across the province are having to choose between their job

and caring for their children during this pandemic. In fact, 37 per cent of

businesses say that child care challenges complicate the return to work of

employees.

I ask

the minister: What is the plan to ensure that child care services are available

for parents this summer?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member for the question.

We've

provided probably one of the most generous child care packages in the country,

including $14.7 million in compensation to regulated child care centres. Right

now we're at 70 per cent capacity at Alert Level 3. Once we move to Alert Level

2, Mr. Speaker, we will be at 100 per cent capacity in our regulated child care

centres across the province, and I think we're going to be in good shape once we

start opening up the economy.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Day camp

registration is now under way in many communities, most operating at a fraction

of normal capacity and some not opening at all. Parents are left worrying where

they will find child care and physical activity for their children.

Minister, will you admit that the lack of child care planning is slowing and

will continue to slow down our economic recovery?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, with regard to

child care, I don't know how to be more clear than the fact that as we enter

Alert Level 2, we will be at 100 per cent capacity with regard to regulated

child care. That's what we had before this pandemic and that's what we will have

once we hit Alert Level 2, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Many families and individuals

in our province are suffering financial hardship and have reached out to us

questioning why government is preventing them from unlocking their pensions.

Minister, why is the government preventing individuals who are struggling from

unlocking their pensions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Member for his question because it is a timely question and an

important question.

The

issue has been brought to my attention even through the All-Party Committee

dealing with COVID. It does require a legislative change. We have had the

department and officials in the department looking at a jurisdictional scan

across the country to see what's happening in other provinces.

Very

soon we will be going forward – so I'll make the announcement today that we're

going forward with public consultations, which will be announced within the next

week or two, to look at getting feedback from stakeholders, from unions, from

anybody who wants to provide feedback, and we will be looking at making

potential changes in the next sitting of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks

for that answer, but it's an ongoing issue now for the last 10 or so years so it

would be nice to see something happen to that.

Almost

all other jurisdictions in the country provide some level of unlocking prior to

the retirement eligibility.

Can the

minister tell us why it isn't permitted in our province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

indicated, it's certainly something that I'm prepared to look at. It's a very

complex issue. It's an issue that today, based on financial need, people would

look to unlock and withdraw money at a much lower level of value than what we

would have seen six or eight months ago; maybe a much lower value than what

we'll see six months from now.

Part of

what we need to ensure, as legislators, when we do these consultations and when

we make changes, is that we put in place proper protocols to ensure that people

are making informed decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, the music

industry has been decimated, gigs and tours postponed or cancelled. Musicians

are sharing their art for free online. Summer festival season is upon us.

What is

the plan to save this important industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member for a very timely question as well.

We've

installed funding and kept our funding whole for those festivals that the hon.

Member is talking about. We've kept those festival investments there so we can

have them continue, whether in a digital format or whether in the future, so

those volunteer organizations get the ability to continue and plan for next

year's events.

addition to that, we also worked very closely with MusicNL. We kept the funding

that we gave MusicNL and provided to artists whole as well, and we've increased

that as well through the pandemic through a process of $25,000 additional just

recently.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister's

answer is fine, but the reality is MusicNL's Press On campaign only funded 34

out of the 70 proposals, so it's not quite adequate enough. Many local artists

are left out and have greatly reduced income.

What is

the plan to ensure the music industry succeeds in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

the question. I thank the hon. Member as well.

The

music industry has the ability to avail of the services that we have with our

federal government as well. We've worked very closely with them to allow the

ability for those programs to be open and accessible to as many Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians as possible.

From the

understanding I have, from many of the artists, they're receiving some of that.

Is that the answer? Absolutely not. We're working very closely with MusicNL, as

I've said before. We'll be looking at opportunities where we can fill those gaps

that exist. One of those gaps that we talked about was the press on funding that

we gave to make that addition to that.

So we're

happy to always be listening to MusicNL and we'll continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to

this pandemic, there were post-secondary students, and there still are

post-secondary students, that are only a matter of weeks away from completing

their program. Since then, their program, their courses, their careers,

employment opportunities have been put on hold.

I ask

the minister responsible: What is being done to expedite their completion?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

to commend the post-secondary institutions – Memorial University, the College of

the North Atlantic and our private training institutions – for working with the

Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, and Health and Community

Services to be very responsive throughout this.

A number

of these institutions have mobilized very quickly and they moved their training

to an online module. When it comes to practical training, it was, I believe, May

26 that we circulated guidelines from Health and Community Services to these

institutions, and they have been restarting their programs and getting students

back into training in as safe a way as possible.

You only

have to look at – some private institutions have resumed in-class training for

those that have been displaced. So there's a lot of movement on this file, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

actually heard from students of CNA and MUN, and they are not receiving

definitive information on the delivery of their fall programs. Hands-on courses

such as welding, automotive repair have practical components.

Now that

the Minister of Education has confirmed that the K to 12 program is going ahead

in September, I ask the minister responsible: Will this be the same with the

post-secondary institutions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

College of the North Atlantic has released its academic plan. They released that

a number of weeks ago for the fall semester. There are many cases this will be

online, and there will be components of practical training where they may in

terms of their guidelines. Memorial University has done the same. A number of

other private training institutions as well have released their plans as to

where they're going forward. These institutions do have autonomy, and as the

situation unfolds they may make changes, but they will be following public

guidelines.

Right

now, those components – Memorial University has said they will offer programming

online in the fall, and the earliest they would return would be in January. Some

in-class training would happen for labs, for pharmacy, for medical, nursing. So

it depends on the –

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

anything has been highlighted during this pandemic is that our Internet service

is in serious need of upgrading and it's not available in some districts. When

the minister talks about online training – and I'm hearing from post-secondary

students on the Northern Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula who are not

getting proper online training because their system is not working properly.

I ask

the minister responsible: Why has it taken a pandemic to initiate some action in

this very much needed area?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you

look at the access to broadband and Internet services within Newfoundland and

Labrador, it would be hard to believe today that we have some of the best that

you would see anywhere in Atlantic Canada. This issue comes up quite often at

meetings with other Atlantic premiers.

There's

no question, once you put as many people on a system that was not designed to

have so many people working from home, education services coming from home,

virtual health care, these are all initiatives that this government, working

with public sector workers, responded to really quickly getting people to adjust

to a new lifestyle.

There's

no question that broadband is an issue within our province, Mr. Speaker. I can

tell you, this is something that is as much a discussion right now with the

federal government. I can tell you this government will put in plans to make

sure that we enhance broadband. It's a necessity. It's one of the basics now to

be able to deliver services by the public sector and others, by businesses as

well –

MR. SPEAKER:

Time is expired for an

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, in this past March sitting of the House of Assembly concern was

raised about the insecurity of our food supply. We were assured, as the House of

Assembly and the people of this province, that there was no concern; yet, as

early as April, the Premier was voicing concerns that we were less than a week

away from running out of food, with only a 5-day food supply.

I ask

any minister: What measures have been put in place to ensure our food supply

will remain intact in the province in the event of another disruption?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think the Member opposite is referring to some comments that

would have been made around Oceanex and the notice they put to discontinue

service or even stop service.

Mr.

Speaker, if you remember, Marine Atlantic and the trucking industries stepped up

in a big way to make sure that food continued to come into our province. We're

also facing, if you look at where we are in food security, some significant

challenges around protein as a result of some of the impacts of COVID in places

like Alberta and BC.

Mr.

Speaker, I will tell you that if you look at

The Way Forward and the vision that we put in place for the

agriculture industry, the work at FLR and recent announcements, we're going to

continue to invest in that because food security, growing products right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we believe is something we must do even more of into

the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

worried about our economy. I've been asking for an economic recovery plan and

I've been trying to initiate the all-party committee on economic recovery that

the Premier agreed to back in March. It's now June; we still don't have a

Committee, or a formal plan or a formal process to build a plan, yet the Premier

says the Alert Levels are part of the plan. He says the raft of business support

initiatives are part of the plan. Surely, the impending budget requires a plan,

too.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will you share this plan, and who's been

writing it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think, to the Leader of the Third Party, she was actually part of a discussion

with the Leader of the Opposition just a few days ago.

In terms

of the all-party committee, I think the fair thing to be able to say is it

wasn't me who actually held that up. Mr. Speaker, to ask a question suggesting

that as Premier, that I was the one who was holding up this all-party committee

is simply not the facts, and I think the Leader of the Third Party would know

that. I'm not here to discuss what happened in that Committee, but I think the

Leader of the Third Party will know that it wasn't me who held up that.

Given

the fact that, yes, we are experiencing some significant challenges as a result

of the pandemic, as a result of the oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to remind people in our province that this will be the worst deficit that

we have seen in the history of the country. As a matter of fact, many people

dealing with the economics of the world are suggesting that this will be the

largest recession in the history of the world. So, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for an answer has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the

have students and teachers back in the classroom with in-person instruction in

September. This will require stringent cleaning protocols to keep surfaces

sanitized and schools safe.

I ask

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development if there are enough

maintenance personnel in the education system, and will there be enough for the

new school year to ensure schools are up the standards of the chief medical

officer?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

appreciate the question from the hon. Member.

A plan

is being developed, as I spoke yesterday, that will provide guidance for the

school districts as directed by public health on all aspects of education

system, including physical distancing measures and cleaning. We will be looking

at all aspects of the education model, Mr. Speaker, from in-class instruction,

social distancing, cleaning measures in washrooms and classrooms. We will be

looking at all aspects of the education system and certainly putting a plan

forward as we move closer to the end of June for September.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, online learning will be particularly challenging for teachers of

school-aged children. Some of these children have diagnosed exceptionalities.

It's going to be challenging for these teachers because they will be required to

balance the delivery of online instruction while ensuring their own children's

educational, physical and emotional needs are tended to.

I ask

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: What emotional and

child care supports will the department and school districts have in place for

teachers so that they can deliver curriculum to their students?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member for the question.

Meeting

the needs of students with exceptionalities, Mr. Speaker, is very much a part of

the discussions and the planning under way for September. We understand that we

need to provide continuous learning for all students, regardless of the

situation of the pandemic.

We will

build on steps that were taken last year, Mr. Speaker. This includes better

instructional resource teachers with families and students through, for example,

the use of assistive technology. It will all form part of the plan as we move

forward to September, when we hope to have all children back in school.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for one quick question

from the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the same question then. For parents of school-aged children who may be working

from home, working at home, leaving home for a job or they're staying at home,

what supports will be in place for those parents for their school-aged children?

Especially those children, if their children require specialized supports.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Part of

our planning going forward, Mr. Speaker, is to have all children back in school

this coming September; however, based on where the pandemic is at that point in

time. This is a plan that we're putting forward. We will look at all aspects of

the education and all children within our education system. We will take into

consideration issues with children who need extra resources and families – we'll

look at that as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11(1), I hereby give notice that the House not adjourn at 5:30

on June 18.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are many people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are very concerned about the

backlog in our health care system as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct the province's health care authorities to

develop and make public a plan that not only returns our health care system to

normal operations, but also deals with significant backlog in appointments,

surgeries and other procedures.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an issue which I've tried to bring up on numerous occasions, I

have brought up and I'm going to continue to bring up as long as the House is

sitting. I've received numerous calls, emails, messages from people throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, from my district and outside my district, and I know

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has as well. I'm sure that Members on all

sides of the House of Assembly have received these calls and concerns.

I'm in

no way, in presenting this petition or raising this issue, knocking the job

that's been done. I have said on numerous occasions and I will continue to say

that the Premier, Dr. Fitzgerald and the Minister of Education have done a great

job in managing this pandemic thus far communicating with the public. I give

them full marks, 100 per cent, but as we proceed now in the Alert Levels, there

are people that have these concerns.

You have

to realize, Mr. Speaker, at the best of times there are significant wait times

for various procedures. Albeit government has made improvements in a number of

areas – and, again, I will give credit that the mental health is one that comes

to mind; made tremendous gains in wait times for people with mental health

issues, but there are still a number of procedures where that's not the case

under the best of circumstances.

Now we

have this tremendous backlog on top of what would normally be the normal wait

time and people have concerns. Imagine four months ago, I give as an example,

you're told that you have some kind of a growth or something, you don't know

what it is. Has it gotten larger? Has it spread? By the time I get this

diagnosed and see a specialist, will it be too late to get treatment? If I have

a heart condition, I'm waiting on some kind of a heart surgery and I'm told to

go home and wait. I'm hoping that by the time I finally get to have that

procedure done, I won't have a heart attack in the meantime. I understand there

is 911 if there's an emergency but it could be too late at that point, Mr.

Speaker.

People

are concerned about these issues. Again, this is not to knock the health

authorities or the government. Like I said, they've done a good job so far with

the pandemic but life has got to go on, and people have these concerns about

their health and it's important that we discuss these matters and bring it to

government's attention.

I'm sure

the Minister of Health is aware of these issues; I know he is. I know he's doing

the best he can, but it's important that we continue to press with him the need

to get these things up and running.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services with a response.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite raises a very important point. I think it only fair to inform

the House, as pretty well everybody else, that the world now is completely

different than it was four months ago. We will not see the world or health care

in this province the same again and to expect to return to the way we used to do

things is unwise.

For the

benefit of the House, cases identified as urgencies by clinicians, cancers and

those kinds of things have continued throughout COVID, unlike in some

jurisdictions where their workload precluded that from COVID.

There is

a plan in place, through the RHAs, to deal with the re-establishment of what

will become the new normal way of doing business. There is a plan through the

RHAs to address the backlog. Indeed, I will be engaging with the Medial

Association, as early as next week, to discuss plans for dealing with the

wait-lists. So the work is being done, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the background on this petition is as follows: The Wilderness and

Ecological Reserve Advisory Council, WERAC, has put forward a proposal,

A Home for Nature: Protected Areas Plan

for the Island of Newfoundland , that has set out 26 ecological reserves and

six transitional reserves.

These

areas include some that are populated by permanent residents, others that are

populated by seasonal users and cabin owners – all of which are of great

cultural and economic significance to all Newfoundlanders.

This

proposal was prepared and put forward by the government without any consultation

with residents, cabin owners, seasonal recreation user or locals with intimate

knowledge of the proposed sites. The impact that this proposal would have on

users' way of life, traditional or otherwise, seems to have been completely

disregarded.

The

proposal was developed without a fully constituted committee of 11 members,

without the reasonable consultation with the parties that would be most severely

impacted by these critical changes to the land and back country areas that, for

some, are home and, for others, are an integral part of their lives.

As well,

this proposal was brought forward in the middle of a global pandemic when

gatherings of any significance to discuss the course of action to fight this

issue would be prohibited. Failure to follow the established principles of

openness and consultation renders this proposal, at the very least, illegal and

brings into question the validity of transparency of the entire process.

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

undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to not accept

WERAC's proposal, A Home for Nature:

Protected Areas Plan for the Island of Newfoundland , and encourage

government to do proper consultation and further plans. Furthermore, it is

respectfully requested that WERAC release all data, documentation and all

research used to select these proposed reserve and transitional areas.

Mr.

Speaker, I was asked to bring this petition forward. It's signed, but these are

electronic signatures. This issue is a grave concern for a lot of people in the

province. I know my colleague, the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills across

the way, spoke out about it last week as well. The Great Northern Peninsula is

going to be adversely affected.

I was

asked to bring it forward. A lot of people in my own district, who use those

areas for cabin country and what have you, have great concern. It also affects

development. It also affects prospecting. There are a lot of effects on this

plan.

It's

been rumoured and it's been in the media that this plan was kicking around for

25 years. That's probably accurate. I know when we were the previous

administration here and I worked with the former minister of Environment, this

was debated, this plan was debated. Upon debate and consideration, there were

too many drawbacks. The negatives outweighed the positives and it was never

proceeded with because it affected too many. The negatives outweighed the

positives, and that's all I can say.

You have

areas where people have existing cabins they want to get to. They want to drive

their snowmobiles, ATVs. They want to cut wood. It's their way of life. They're

already existing. They're going to be limited by this, plus your developments.

All in

all, Mr. Speaker, this will have a negative impact; it doesn't have the proper

balance. I call upon government to reconsider and do proper consultations so

that everyone has a fair say in the process.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources with a response.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

like to thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this petition, as well as the

petitioners who brought forward their views before the House of Assembly, which

is where all views should be registered and heard. I also want to thank the

members of the WERAC advisory council and committee for their work over the

preceding period. It has been helpful in terms of guiding, consultation and

efforts by the people of the province, by those who have a vested interest and

an important interest in protecting our natural areas.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member is quite right when he discussed the various aspects of

the WERAC plan. It is indeed just that. It is the Wilderness and Ecological

Reserve Advisory committee's plan. There has been controversy over this plan, as

the hon. Member has put forward. This has been a process that has been unfolding

for well over 25 years. In fact, out of frustration two current members from the

WERAC committee decided to leave the committee, and I respect both of those

individuals for their point of view.

What I

can say is that after 25 years of inaction, the plan is now put forward for a

public consultation and that public consultation will occur until October 1.

This is indeed WERAC's plan, and I look forward to hearing from them

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The

reasons for this petition:

WHEREAS

individual residents and municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay North

Joint Council, have spoken to the deplorable road conditions in the District of

Harbour Main; and

WHEREAS

the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood,

Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches

Line, Makinsons, who have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS

these roads see high-volume traffic flows everyday and drivers can expect

potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed out areas along the

way;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly to immediately take the

necessary steps to repair and repave these important roadways to ensure the

safety of the driving public who use them on a regular basis.

Mr.

Speaker, in the past 13 months since my election, one of the biggest issues I

hear about from my constituents are the conditions of the roads. The people in

the district are outraged, in fact, by the fact that the roads are deplorable.

Many people, not only in my district but other motorists outside of the

district, travel on these roads are very concerned. They're concerned about

safety issues. They're concerned about hazards caused through these roads.

People,

motorists, residents are getting increasingly frustrated by inaction of the

government. Individuals are upset, but not only individual citizens, Conception

Bay North Joint Council members have spoken to me and also written the minister

expressing grave concerns and frustration.

I have

many letters here. The mayor of South River recently wrote to the minister. He

was talking about the large potholes that are dangerous and difficult to avoid,

specifically in the area of South River hill to North River. They are concerned

that the potholes in front of the daycare in South River are particularly

hazardous.

The area

by the bridge from South River to Clarke's Beach is another area of concern.

There are trenches there that make it impossible for pedestrians to safely cross

the bridge. Despite requests to have the problem corrected last year, and the

year before according to the mayor of South River, it was not done.

The town

council of North River, again, sent a detailed letter to the minister and, as

well, has spoken to me about it. Their level of frustration grows, the letter

says: as we continue to be overlooked by government to address the deplorable

hazardous conditions of the main road in North River.

We have

the Town of Brigus expressing the same concerns with respect to the bottom of

South River hill to the bottom of North River hill. They're deplorable and

require immediate attention. These towns are writing to express their concerns

and show their support to the towns in this area.

The Town

of Cupids, as well, has expressed their concerns. This was just recently in May

as well, regarding the condition of the Conception Bay Highway from South River

to the bottom.

I have

more and more letters, Mr. Speaker. People have a right to know what action this

Minister of Transportation will be taking to improve these roads that people

have to travel on, and when can they expect results.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

small businesses are the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador's increasingly

diversified economy and their contributions and the role they play in society is

anything but small; and

WHEREAS

they are creating jobs and opportunities, strengthening and building communities

and fortifying the provincial economy, as well as creating innovative solutions;

and

WHEREAS

there are supports available to small businesses during the pandemic, there are

small businesses that continue to struggle.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop a course of action to assist

small businesses that are unable to avail of current supports or are in need of

other supports to ensure they survive the current pandemic and continue to

contribute to the society and success of our economy in the long term.

Mr.

Speaker, in my district, in the District of Topsail - Paradise, there are many,

many small businesses. I've attended, over the last year, many ribbon cuttings

for small businesses. If you look at the stats around small businesses in

Newfoundland and Labrador, there are probably about – just in the ballpark,

about 16,000 businesses in the province. Ninety-seven per cent of those

businesses fall under the definition of a small business. Over 85 per cent are

business with 19 or less employees. To say they are the backbone of our economy

is not an understatement; the fact is they are.

With

many new businesses trying to start up and still looking at covering their

start-up costs, they need assistance, especially in this pandemic. The

commercial rent program is a good example; it's a program whereby the landlords

had to apply for the relief as opposed to the business.

As we

move forward, we want to see less closures. In the building I occupy, my office

in the district occupies, in the last couple of months two small businesses have

already closed doors. I have seen the U-Hauls pull in, gone, never to be seen

again and we have to stop this. We have to ensure that our businesses are able

to sustain and be around for a long time. They are not looking for hand outs, I

can guarantee you that; they are looking for some assistance and a hand up

because they struggle, especially in this day and age, with just covering their

rent.

I hope,

and I pray, that we are going to do something to assist our small businesses and

ensure they are here tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation with a response.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the hon. Member for bringing the petition and the petitioners as well.

We've

worked very closely from the start of the pandemic and continue to work with our

federal colleagues in the development of the programs that they've put forward,

whether that be the wage subsidy, the rental program, the interest-free working

capital loans. We've worked with them that benefit small business as well.

Is it

perfect? Absolutely not. That is why we've worked with them. That's why we've

tried to make transitions to expand those programs to satisfy the most available

opportunities with businesses. In the province here, myself and the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour have met on multiple occasions with, I think, 21 different

business leaders that represent thousands of different businesses within our

province. We met with them almost on a by-weekly basis to discuss the issues

they've had to bring forward those concerns.

We've

used some of those meetings as stakeholder groups to action items like deferral

of fees and permits, tax payment extensions, deferral of loan payments. We put a

$10 million utility credit there. There's $25 million tourism, hospitality

program. We have (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I can go on and

on and on about this.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, the

undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our

leaders to ensure that before the fall semester starts for high school and

post-secondary students, the Internet infrastructure be upgraded in the Northern

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

Postville and Rigolet.

Our

Northern Labrador communities have broadband, but the required speeds essential

for online courses is not available on a consistent basis, causing systems to

lock up and/or boot students off the system. This aging and inadequate

infrastructure does not support broadband required for online meetings, video

conferencing, nor the ability to support video platforms like Zoom, Skype and

Google suite applications that the schools use.

Broadband is not available on a consistent basis necessary for students taking

online courses. Students will be handicapped at a critical time in their

education path, impacting their ability to succeed if the Internet system 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 so our students can have the same access

to Internet services as the rest of the province.

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

call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure Internet services be upgraded in the Northern Indigenous

communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.

This

petition was presented last week. I gave specific examples of problems of slow

Internet services. Also, I talked about the fact that the Internet is so

unreliable that our post-secondary students will not be able to take online

courses. Also, I gave examples of where high school students will not be able to

participate in online learning. This is a very critical time for their education

path. That was all examples given last time; I'm presenting the petition again.

One of

the things that really bothers me – and I'm speaking to my people now, the

people of Torngat Mountains. People here in the House don't need to listen if

they don't want to. The problem with being Indigenous communities is a lot of

times people think there is a lot of money available. Do you know something?

There is. There's a lot of money available through the federal government.

Trudeau has announced much money. I was in the meeting a couple of days ago with

the federal MP and Bell Aliant and they told me that the infrastructure is

actually – there is such a gap that they can't apply on the money.

federal dollars out there for Indigenous communities is going to other

Indigenous people. In actual fact, a lot of the Indigenous dollars that's being

spent is not going to Indigenous people; it's not going to Indigenous students.

I'm saying to my people, the people of Torngat Mountains: I have two hands and

on these hands there are eight fingers and I tell you after a year of being in

this House, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to start pointing fingers because somebody is

taking the Indigenous dollars that are supposed to be given to the Innu and the

Inuit of Labrador.

The Innu

and Inuit of Labrador are future leaders. The students are being failed by this

government and by the federal government.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a response.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could

not agree more with my hon. colleague across the way. I look forward to sitting

down and having a meeting with her tomorrow morning, actually, on this very

topic. We're going to be there shoulder to shoulder with you to try to do as

much as we possibly can to avail of those dollars that we can.

understand that this is a national issue. The federal government is the lead

agency on this. They're pushing significantly more than $1 billion out over the

next 10 years to satisfy a 50-10 requirement, as a minimum standard of what they

have. We don't have that in this province; we need to get there.

I look

forward to working with my hon. colleague on this matter because it's

fundamental to not only the education system, economic development, health and

safety, we're doing things that has been uncovered with respect to COVID-19 that

we never would have thought how much video conferencing was going to be used.

That's non-existent. Even my colleague, when I talked to the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour sometimes over Skype, we can't get a good

conversation doing because it keeps cutting out.

It's all

over our province. We have to fix these problems and I look forward to working

with you. Hopefully, we will find some solutions that we can move these forward

as quick as we possibly can, but it's going to take all of us pushing them. I'm

glad that we can work together on this.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right

now I am speaking to Motion 5 on the Order Paper, which is one that we placed in

the House of Assembly yesterday, and I will read it for the record:

WHEREAS

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under

section 28 of the

Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make

recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS

the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety on June 6, 2019; and

WHEREAS

the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial

Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal Report was tabled in this hon.

House on June 25, 2019, as required by

section 28.2 of the act; and

WHEREAS

the House of Assembly is required to approve, vary or reject the report; and

WHEREAS

government has decided to ask this hon. House to accept all of the

recommendations of the tribunal as contained in its report of June 4, 2019;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the

2018 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits

Tribunal; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommendations of the tribunal be

implemented effective April 1, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, what I've read in here is a resolution that basically comes into –

MR. SPEAKER:

We need a seconder for that

motion.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Oh, sorry, seconded by the

Minister of Natural Resources. It's been a while, Mr. Speaker. I'm just getting

the rust off. Thank you.

This is

a resolution that comes into this House quite regularly. In fact, a number of

times over the last 30 years.

Now,

prior to just talking about that, I will say, for those that may be watching on

TV, I normally don't sit in these seats. I would normally be on the floor. It's

a bit different being in the nosebleeds, but it's still a fun view. Again, I

would point out to anybody that's watching that due to COVID, I guess,

regulations the seating arrangement in the House is quite different. From my

information, there was one seat that could not be placed on the floor due to

spacing protocol. I'm just, again, putting this out there to constituents that

might be watching just to make sure they know I'm not up here for bad behaviour.

One seat

had to be off the floor, and given the fact that I have an immunocompromised

individual in my family, it was felt that I could sit here and still participate

in the House, which again is something very nice to come back to after having

been absent for so long. I put that out to my constituents in case they're

wondering why I'm sitting up here, as one reporter noted yesterday, like Harold

Ballard watching the Leafs from the gondola.

I'll

just get to this tribunal. Again, my goal is to provide some context, some

background and some information as to what this process is. I shouldn't take too

long. This is something that happens every four years.

Some

history is that prior to 1991 salaries for Provincial Court Judges in our

province were determined by a formula. That formula was basically upon 85 per

cent of the top of the scale for the province's deputy minister. In 1991 the

Provincial Court Act was enacted and provided for a tribunal process in which a

tribunal would be appointed to make recommendations on the salary and benefits.

The first one was the Whalen Tribunal. They've happened essentially every four

years since that time.

I'll get

into some reasoning behind that. One being there was a Supreme Court case in

1997 called the PEI reference which talked about judicial independence and

constitutional requirements for the financial security of judges which lays out

why do we do it this way. Why is this different than negotiations involving

other public sector servants or politicians?

For this

particular tribunal, which was appointed in 2017, they were appointed to make

recommendations for a four-year period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2021. And

I will get into the history prior to that.

They did

hearings in January 31 to February 1 of last year. So there would be submissions

made by government and as well by the Provincial Court judges' association, oral

and written submissions. The report was submitted last June, June 6 of 2019.

There's a

section in the act that states that we have to table it in the House –

which we did so on June 25. Then we had to basically decide, do we confirm, vary

or reject the tribunal's recommendations.

again, we are a bit behind

schedule here, but I will note that very similar to

what's been done in most other cases, these tend to take some time and end up

being debated in the House and often – in this case, the fact that it's 2020

we're still within that window,

whereas in some cases it's actually happened

after that window. So there will be a portion of this that is retroactive.

Again,

the members of the tribunal were made up by Brad Wicks, Q.C., David Eaton, Q.C.,

and John Whelan. Now these are the same individuals that were appointed in 2013

by the previous administration. So they would've dealt with the Provincial Court

judges' remuneration for a period of 2013-2017. This government made the

decision to have the same individuals in place, which we felt was a positive

move, given it would allow for some continuity, individuals that have done this

before and can come in and present this case. We thank them for their work, for

their timely work. And again, they've been doing this for some time.

I'll

move forward here. So they make recommendations on a number of factors. There's

salary, there's per diem judges, severance, long-term disability and the costs.

Basically, everybody whether it be the government or Provincial Court judges

would make a submission on both sides and the tribunal would rule on it and come

up with their recommendation. Then it's up to government whether they want to

agree with it or disagree with it or change certain portions.

I will

try now to provide some, I guess, background of what's happened in the past with

these motions. What we did have, going back to 1992, there was the Whalen

Tribunal. They actually recommended an 11 per cent increase in salary in '92 and

then an 11 per cent increase in 1994. Back then, government deferred the reports

citing the Public Sector Restraint Act,

which you can imagine a 22 per cent increase in salaries, again back during

those times, would have caused some conversation amongst people.

One of

the big decisions that shows us why this is a constitutional requirement and one

that we just cannot ignore or treat the same as any negotiation comes from the

PEI reference, which was the decision on judicial independence and

constitutional requirements. It established the requirement for independent

judicial compensation commissions to regularly inquire into the adequacy of

Provincial Court judge compensation and benefits.

The

judges' association commenced litigation and, back then, they sought a

declaration that the Whalen Tribunal's recommendations had become law and the

government of the day did not deal with the recommendations as they should have.

After that, there was the Roberts Tribunal which made recommendations for the

period of 1996 to 2000. That endorsed the Whalen report and, again, government

of the day deferred consideration of that report. Government then accepted the

recommendations of the Roberts report by a resolution in the House in December

In 1998,

the Trial Division rendered a decision ordering that the recommendation of the

Whalen report be implemented and that was upheld upon appeal. In the spring of

2001 there was the Hoegg Tribunal, which they had to make recommendations for a

period of April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2004. At that time, a judge's salary was

$112,000. The Hoegg report, which was tabled in November 2001, recommended that

the raise over eight years should bring that to $159,181. That went through the

House; there was a variation that was sought, bringing that salary down. The

Provincial Court judges' association responded to that and they challenged the

variations, basically successful in their application, particularly regarding

salary. Justice Lang, in August 2003, declared that the salary recommendations

were binding on government.

continue on. You can see the history in court has shown that it's very difficult

to vary these. That's why we have this type of system. They allow for their

independence.

In 2005,

the government appointed the Steele Tribunal which they were meant to cover off

a five-year period. The government at the time adopted all the recommendations.

They saw increases of zero per cent, zero per cent, 3 per cent and 2 per cent.

The

Andrews Tribunal came in December 2009, and covered off a period to 2013. That

saw an annual increase of 11.5 per cent followed by 3 per cent, 3 per cent and 3

per cent. At this point, Provincial Court judges' salaries rose to $215,732.

Then we

had the Wicks Tribunal, which, as I said, was appointed in 2013 to cover that

off until 2017. Then it has been reappointed and they've made the recommendation

here that we are debating today.

That

report, the first report, the first tribunal that the Wicks Tribunal handled was

delivered to the Attorney General on December 2015, which would have been

myself; however, when this was commenced it was done by the previous

administration. We tabled the report on March 17, 2016, and the resolution

adopted, at that time, all recommendations of the Wicks Tribunal with the

exception of salary. At the time it was proposed that the recommendation for

salary be zero per cent for four years.

Similarly, as been done in the past, July 2016 the judges' association sought

judicial review. In June 2018, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador

released a decision, again finding that the resolution did not conform with the

constitutional obligations. They brought in the salary recommendation which was

3 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 4 per cent.

When we

talk about these – and I still remember one of the first Question Periods I did

as the Minister of Justice, the former leader of the Opposition asked why,

during these times of fiscal restraint, could we ask for raises for judges. I

had to remind him that it was his government that actually did so. That was an

interesting time there.

The same

tribunal was appointed. They were appointed December 2018. As I said, they

brought the report on June 6, 2019, and we are here debating with that today.

What I'm going to try to do now is go through the recommendations that the

tribunal brought forward, and that's what we're dealing with here today.

One of

the first things they agreed to – and there was an agreement with government's

position here – is that severance accrued prior to April 1, 2002, should be paid

out immediately to those judges entitled to it. When it came to everything else,

I would point out that government was unsuccessful.

The

Wicks Tribunal recommended compensation for per diem judges. These would be

part-time judges, judges that hear cases not for full time, but when there's a

shortage or a judge is out; usually they're retired judges that come in and

handle these part-time. They recommended compensation as it related to their

travel, the half-day compensation at a per diem rate. Then, they recommended a

full-day compensation at a per diem rate if they had to travel over 400

kilometres. So different forms of their remuneration or compensation as it

relates to per diem judges.

Regarding long-term disability, the Wicks Tribunal recommended that benefits

should be extended to Provincial Court judges until the mandatory age of

retirement, as it may be established by statute from time to time, instead of to

the age of 65. Right now the Provincial Court judge retirement age is 70, and

that is mandatory. I would point out, that is different than federal judges.

On the

issue of legal costs and disbursements, the Wicks Tribunal recommended that

government pay two-thirds of the judges' tribunal costs as opposed to one-half

of the judges' cost, as it was argued by government.

The

tribunal rejected the recommendations made by government on salaries, so I'll

point out what the recommendations were. In 2017-2018, government proposed a

zero per cent. The Provincial Court judges went with 3 per cent. The tribunal

recommendation was zero per cent.

2018-'19, government's proposal was again zero per cent. The PCJA's proposal was

again three per cent, and again the tribunal recommendation was zero per cent.

2019-'20, government's proposal was zero per cent. I would point out that PCJA's

proposal was again 3 per cent. Government basically split the difference here,

coming in at 1.6 per cent, which would raise the current Provincial Court

judges' salary from $247,545 to $251,506.

Finally,

for 2020-2021, government's recommendation was zero per cent. The PCJA's was 3

per cent. The tribunal put it at a CPI for 2017, 2019 and 2020, which I would

point out amounts to basically a roughly 6 per cent raise for that period of

time.

The big

question we will come to – and, again, it's been debated here in the past and

especially when it comes out into the public. They say, well, how can you,

during a time of fiscal restraint, offer judges a raise? There are a couple

things that I would point out here. Judges are unique and different in our

government. Again, they form an independent pillar of government, that being the

judiciary – different than the Executive, different than the legislative. They

are treated differently. I would point that if you were to do pattern bargaining

with them, similar to what's been done with unions in the past, that will be

tossed out, out of hand. There is absolutely no acceptance of that.

As you

can see, when the tribunal system was put in place, it was put in to allow –

basically, to ensure that when it comes to judges' salaries that they are not

dictated by the whim of Legislatures, by the whim of politicians or by the whim

of popular sentiment. I would sometimes look at judges being similar to

politicians, in that when you talk about pay increases they are not looked at

very favourably, regardless of any of the factors that would be behind that.

The last

one, you'll note that when we put in the pattern of zeros across the board, that

was rejected out of hand by the Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and

Labrador. In this case, again, the zeros were put across. We did not get as much

as the PCJA recommended, but they did come with zero, zero, 1.6 and, roughly,

six.

The

thought process is that government is not proposing a raise for judges. This is

done by tribunals under the process that I've laid out, but I would also point

out that we have done this in the past where various governments have gone to

argue about the raise that's been recommended by the tribunal. In fact,

governments generally do not fair well, and to argue about the percentage that

was recommended here in this case, you would likely spend more time, money and

energy in courts battling this for what's likely to be a very unsuccessful

resolution.

That's

why we're recommending in this case that the tribunal's recommendations across

the board be accepted by this Legislature so that we can move forward.

Obviously, the next one will be 2021 to 2025, and the reality is that one will

have to be appointed again very soon. In many cases, these tribunals are not

appointed until after that period of time has started. That's been similar since

these have started back in the early '90s.

Judges

have been proven by the Supreme Court of Canada to be different, or unlike

regular civil servants who are also paid from the public purse. They must have

their remuneration and benefits determined by an independent depoliticized

process.

On the

other hand – and this is quoting from paragraph 143 of the PEI reference of the

Supreme Court of Canada. “On the other hand, the fact remains that judges,

although they must ultimately be paid from public monies, are not civil

servants. Civil servants are part of the executive; judges, by definition, are

independent of the executive. The three core characteristics of judicial

independence – security of tenure, financial security, and administrative

independence – are a reflection of that fundamental distinction, because they

provide a range of protections to members of the judiciary to which civil

servants are not constitutionally entitled.”

That

came right from the Supreme Court of Canada which is the – and the PEI reference

is basically the guiding legislation when it comes to this. I will point out

that salary and benefit tribunals exist federally and in every province. So this

is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. This goes on all across our country.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I think I've laid out the point again. I've had an

opportunity to do this. I will point out that the report is available for public

viewing. It would have been tabled in this House last year, so any Member of

this House should have access to this or a member of the public who would like

to get that.

On that

note, I will take my seat. I will listen to comments from my colleagues and I

look forward to being able to speak to this again shortly.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the next

speaker, I just want to – as the Member mentioned, we've had to reconfigure the

House here. We have some Members sitting on the floor in the Speaker's gallery

and we have one Member who has volunteered to sit up in the public gallery. I

want to thank all Members who are sitting in those galleries because their

co-operation really makes this sitting of the House possible, given the health

regulations and the situation we're in. Again, I thank you all for doing that.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One is

always tempted to say I rise to do something, but, of course, not quite so in

these COVID times.

I wish

to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for his remarks in support

of this. It is with great regret that the Official PC Opposition cannot support

the motion. We are not in favour of the increase – modest though it be – for

Provincial Court judges. The reason is – to quote the Minister of Health from

response to a petition earlier this afternoon: These are not normal times. In

fact, everything has changed.

One of

the factors, as the minister very well knows, a strong factor, which the

tribunal process takes into account, is the fiscal capacity of the province and

its economic condition and prospects that strongly conditions the recommendation

that panel members make on a quadrennial basis under the terms of the

legislation; which, as the minister ably explained, has its roots a decade or

two in the past in litigation between Provincial Court judges in various

provinces and governments in various provinces, which eventually found its way

to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada.

As a

result of their guidance, statutory processes were implemented, put into effect,

to attempt to depoliticize the process of review and setting of Provincial Court

judges' salaries. Not entirely successful, perhaps, because litigation has

arisen from time to time and, who knows, may arise as a result of the vote

today, but we don't know the outcome of the vote.

My point

is that given that everything has changed, we in the PC Opposition, as

sympathetic as we are to the position of judges and as much as we endorse the

principles that the Minister of Justice outlined that have to do with financial

independence, administrative independence and the need for judges to be

remunerated in a fashion which is calculated to attract the best talent to the

position – everything has changed in the last several months.

instead of waiting a year – and this report is dated June 4, 2019 – the minister

had brought this report before us even four months ago, I personally would have

had no problem whatsoever in voting in favour of what the recommendations say

should happen with judicial remuneration for Provincial Court judges. But this

is now four months later and, indeed, everything has changed.

The

fiscal position of the province has deteriorated to the extent that the Premier

of the province wrote to the prime minister on March 20 and said we are out of

time, in a plea for assistance from the federal government of the country,

assistance for us to be able to borrow money to meet our short-term obligations,

to assist us in cash-flow management. Without the assistance of the Bank of

Canada, Mr. Speaker, it appears we would have come up dry in the bond markets,

unable to borrow to meet current account obligations, unable to pay public

servants, unable to pay the bills, unable to make payroll.

That, to

me, speaks a volume; it says enough, actually, about the wisdom of engaging or

legitimating a process in which evidence was heard two years ago, including from

economists like Dr. Jim Feehan, who many of us, perhaps, know and certainly have

heard of. That evidence is now a year and a half and two years stale. As I said,

if these recommendations had been brought before the House even four months ago,

I would have, without any hesitation, voted in favour, but now things are

totally different. To use a colloquialism: the arse is out of the Treasury.

In those

circumstances, we are unable to support the motion. In fact, it's perplexing to

those of us on this side – astonishing, even – that even though the amount of

money involved here is modest, that the government would behave as if nothing

has changed, despite what's happened in the last three months since the COVID

epidemic began and the fiscal bottom fell out of our boat.

Voting

in favour of this would be sending a message to the public that everything is

normal, business can be conducted as if everything was normal. It's business as

usual, nobody needs to worry. Yes, we'll obey the recommendation of a tribunal

panel, which acted in the best of good faith in a set of recommendations from

just over a year ago based on evidence, which, when they composed the report,

was already six to 12 months out of date.

Mr.

Speaker, that is a profound failure on the part of the government to take into

account the dire fiscal circumstances of the province. It is the wrong message

to send to the public. The public needs reassurance rather, that there is a

government in charge which understands the depth of the challenges and has a

plan to deal with them and overcome them. Not meekly accepting a recommendation

based on out-of-date information, which takes no account of the dire nature of

the circumstances this province now finds itself in. That, in a nutshell, is why

we cannot support the motion.

Now,

it's again surprising that the Minister of Justice would see his way to

supporting these recommendations when one compares his remarks today with his

remarks from 2016 in relation to the previous quadrennial report on judges'

salaries. Let me read these into the record, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said – and remember now, this is in the wake of the current government

coming to power in the election of 2015 and taking office and considering the

business at hand, one of which was a report from the quadrennial tribunal on

judges' salaries. The response then was very different from what it is today.

Yes, the financial circumstances were challenging in 2016, but they were not

nearly as challenging as we face today.

It's

perplexing that a minister who was very critical of raises for judges, based on

the circumstances in 2016, would be supportive of raises for judges based on the

circumstances that prevail today in the wake of the COVID epidemic and our dire

fiscal straits. In which we depend on a credit card, apparently without a limit

to it, in order to conduct our normal financial business, a credit card issued

by the federal government.

Here's

what the minister said back in the day: “… I am going to speak to the

recommendation on salary and why we've recommended rejection of said. The

province recognizes that judges are public servants as opposed to civil

servants. This distinction and their important role is reflected in their

compensation, which places them outside the range of the highest paid civil

servants and beyond the amounts paid to persons in other branches of government

such as Members of this House and Ministers of the Crown.

“The

ability of the province to remunerate judges is not, however, without limit.

Compensation must not only be fair and reasonable, but it must also conform with

the economic realities of this province.

“Mr.

Speaker, Budget 2016 clearly shows an

unprecedented financial situation in Newfoundland and Labrador. The uncontrolled

growth in expenditures by the previous government, as well as previous

unsustainable tax and fee reductions and the dramatic fall in revenues in oil

production” – my, this sounds rather familiar – “have produced a serious and

unsustainable imbalance. The province must take action or provincial debt will

be increased to unsupportable levels and long-term economic growth will be

jeopardized.

“Mr.

Speaker, 2008 oil prices peaked at $144 US a barrel. From January to

Budget 2016 the average price for oil

was $35 US a barrel. In addition, many economic indicators have reported

declines. Real GDP fell by 2.3 per cent as oil production fell by 20.5 per cent

due to lower output from Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose. Investment also

declined by 8.1 per cent as higher spending on the Muskrat Falls development was

offset by our lower spending on Vale's nickel processing facility in Long

Harbour, the Hebron Project and residential construction.

“Employment fell by 1 per cent and the unemployment rate increased by 0.9

percentage points to 12.8 per cent in 2015. Economic activity has slowed due to

the winding down of activities in Alberta, combined with winding down of

development phases of Hebron and Muskrat Falls Projects. There's been a shift in

the medium- and long-term view of commodity prices, such as oil, iron ore and

nickel, which has further weakened our province's revenue base and economic

outlook. Development of several projects in the resource sector has been

deferred or delayed.”

How much

of this sounds familiar? And remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the Minister of

Justice, himself, his words spoken a few years ago in relation to the same

issue: a raise for Provincial Court judges. He spoke of nothing in his remarks,

nothing focused on the dire fiscal circumstances and economic circumstances of

the province today but he chose to do so back in 2016.

Our

economy, “as we all know, is heavily resourced-based, and thus has been and is

expected to continue to be negatively impacted by the global economic climate.

“Mr.

Speaker, the tribunal's report referred to the province's fiscal situation as

temporary, and it is clear that the current understanding of our province's

fiscal situation is much different than that upon which the tribunal's report

was based. At the time of the previous administration's submission to the

tribunal the projected deficit was $1.1 billion for 2015-2016, which the current

government later revised in Budget 2016

to $2.2 billion for 2015-2016.” May I add, in parenthesis, we'll be lucky to see

a deficit that low this year.

The

minister goes on: “Government was facing and even higher unprecedented deficit

of $2.7 billion for 2016-2017 if no fiscal measures had been taken. As a result

of the difficult choices, Budget 2016

is forecasting a deficit of $1.8 billion; unprecedented expenses of $8.5 billion

and the unprecedented, again, borrowing of $3.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, our

government has announced that further measures will be required in order to

restore fiscal stability in our province.”

For some

reason, Mr. Speaker, none of the recounting of fiscal statistics which

apparently, according to the Minister of Finance, aren't really very available

to us because it just takes too much work by his officials to have them ready to

dust off and present to the public. Maybe that's the reason, but none of that

was recounted by the minister in addressing the motion this afternoon in the way

that he did four years ago.

To go

back to Hansard and the minister:

“Now, in the existing climate, many difficult decisions have been necessary and

these effects are universal. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has been

impacted. In such a climate, to accept the recommendation to increase the salary

of Provincial Court judges, it would be so contrary to the fiscal restraint

measures to which the general population is subject that it could bring the

courts, the judiciary and possibly the administration of justice in this

province into disrepute.”

Well,

Mr. Speaker, how much would those words or could those words apply to

circumstances today?

The

minister again: “Now, while our province recognizes the vital contribution made

by Provincial Court judges in Newfoundland and Labrador, and understand and

respect the work of the Salary and Benefits Tribunal, and recognize and uphold

the importance of judicial independence, we are unable to comply with all the

recommendations of the tribunal. We are therefore suggesting rejection of the

recommended salary increase of 3 per cent for 2013-14, 3 per cent for 2014-15, 4

per cent for 2015-16 and 4 per cent for 2016-17.

“As a

result, the salary of a Provincial Court judge will continue at $215,732 for the

years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. While we continue to be committed

to providing fair and reasonable compensation to Provincial Court judges,

economic realities affect us all. As the jurisprudence reflects, judges are not

shielded from sharing the impact of economic restraint in such serious fiscal

circumstances.”

The

minister went on: “Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the

resolution addressing the recommendations of the 2014 Provincial Court Judges

Salary and Benefits Tribunal. I look forward to the discussion from all

Members.”

So, Mr.

Speaker, what is the salary of Provincial Court judges today? Many people in the

province have, just for a period of weeks and months, been furloughed and thrown

out of work and become dependent on various forms of benefits, mainly emanating

Although some may be renewed for a temporary period, the point about these

benefits is they are temporary emergency benefits and will not be permanent.

They are not a permanent solution and will not be permanent.

So are

our Provincial Court judges hard done by? It's a fact, and a fact all of us in

this House can be grateful for, that anyone in public service has had the

benefit of a stable employed position and a stable income through the

disruptions caused by the COVID epidemic in the last four months. That is

something that anyone in public service can and should be grateful for, and

Provincial Court judges as well, being in public service themselves.

paragraph 152 the salary history for Provincial Court judges: 2017, $247,546;

2018 was the same; 2019, $251,506. This would represent a 1.6 per cent raise.

Mr. Speaker, 2020, by a somewhat complicated formula, would be higher based on

inflationary factor to be calculated based on a trailing average – I think it

was of three years – because, of course, when the tribunal reported a year ago,

they didn't know what the inflation would be in the intervening year or so. This

was “To be determined on April 1, 2020 as per calculation methodology set out

above.”

I just

note in passing that the panel also provided for a payment of interest on any

arrears that might be agreed on by the government and voted in favour by this

House. Arrears would begin to attract interest from April 1, 2020. In other

words, the tribunal thought that if the government didn't get its act together

to act on this by that date, then it would be fair enough to make sure that

interest was paid on the arrears that might be owing to Provincial Court judges,

so that represents their determination as to what they thought a reasonable

period of time to take action would be. We, of course, have overrun that.

In the

area of $250,000 a year in these troubled times, Mr. Speaker, would be regarded

by most people in our society as being fair, if not generous, remuneration for

somebody who has the stability of a Provincial Court post. Indeed, for anybody

who is in public service, security of employment and a good salary. In all the

circumstances, denying this inflationary raise for the judges, which is

admittedly of a modest nature, by itself it does not amount to a challenge to

the Treasury of the province – although every expenditure, when you're running a

huge deficit, can be said to be a challenge – but it's sending out the wrong

message to the public.

Would

the public be sympathetic if they knew all the facts about judicial

remuneration? Will the public have a sense of outrage and disappointment if

judges don't get the raise that is recommended in this report? I think not. Will

judges themselves be offended? Again, I think not.

Many of

the learned judges that we're having reference to here – and I think there are

22 in number who are in full-time service – many of these folks are friends of

mine. Knowing them as rational people who understand the surrounding

circumstances of things and are capable of understanding the context of

important decisions, I think that most will be understanding of the position

taken by my party and by the Official Opposition on whether action should be

taken on this report as proposed by the learned Minister of Justice.

To go

back over the process of decision-making, the tribunal at paragraph 114

summarizes the factors that are considered in such exercises. They say: “In

setting the context of the coming recommendations, we have analyzed five key

factors which varied in respective determinative weight: The Nature and

Importance of the Work Performed by Provincial Court Judges and Their Unique

Role and Responsibility in our Society ….”

Mr.

Speaker, none of us on this side of the House challenge that the work done by

judges is of great importance and that they have a unique role and unique

responsibility in society, and that the performance of this role and this

responsibility is very demanding and, for that reason, deserves a good standard

of remuneration.

The

second factor was the need to attract, motivate and retain the most highly

qualified candidates from all areas of practice. The report, in some detail,

goes over information drawn from remuneration for lawyers and senior lawyers in

private practice, remuneration provided in the public service. Here I'm

referring to the civil service because, obviously, all that context needs to be

accounted for when you're attempting to implement the principle, we have to

attract and motivate and retain highly qualified candidates. We, on this side of

the House, believe in that too.

Salaries

of other relevant groups of society is another factor, and, again, the tribunal

took that into account. It took into account increases in the cost of living.

I'll just stop for a moment here to note that increases in the cost of living of

late, of the last several years, have been very modest. In fact, well below the

2 per cent target which the Bank of Canada set some, what, 15 or more years ago.

It's more like about 1.5 per cent per year.

We don't

deny, in the least, the erosive effect of inflation as years pile up and time

goes by; inflation is modest, but it does have its effects. But the effect on

Provincial Court judges is restrained because we're only asking them to swallow

inflation for a period of several years here. Their remunerations remain

substantial.

There's

nothing to stop this House or the then government, a year, two years from now,

perhaps under a PC government, when the economy has been stabilized and put back

on its feet, from re-examining the merits of a raise for Provincial Court

judges.

The last

factor is the fiscal capacity of government in light of current economic

conditions. There's where the problem lies because we, in this House, are all

aware the fiscal capacity of government in light of current economic – current

economic conditions is woeful and dire. In fact, we are teetering on insolvency

and the government itself has not put forward a plan as yet for how we get

ourselves back on our feet and away from the precipice.

Again,

as I say, the evidence on which these recommendations were made is a year and a

half to two years stale now. The evidence of fiscal capacity and surrounding

economic circumstances that was before the tribunal when they made their

recommendations is not current, and no one needs persuading in this House that

circumstances have dramatically changed from what they were two years or a year

and a half ago.

Again, I

repeat, I myself would have no problem whatsoever voting in favour of this prior

to the COVID crisis and the fiscal crisis consequent on the COVID crisis.

moving along to paragraph 141, one of the questions that comes up is an obvious

comparator group would be Provincial Court judges in other Atlantic provinces.

The finding the tribunal makes there is: “… we accept that the average Maritime

region salary is either $250,692 or $254,982, depending on the result of ongoing

litigation in Nova Scotia.”

The

present remuneration or salary for judges of $247,546 compares to either

$250,000 or $254,000. There's a gap, but is it a significant gap or an

intolerable gap? This, again, is something that has to be conditioned by the

fiscal and economic circumstances of the province. Although judges' pay in the

Maritime region is something to take into account, and the tribunal did take it

into account, but there is not a large gap.

It goes

on at paragraph 142: “Regarding the current fiscal capacity and economic

conditions in the Province” – remember, they're going from out-of-date

information now, from a year and a half to two years ago – “there was a

surprising consistency between the Auditor General's Report, the Bruce Report,

and the Feehan Report which has led to the conclusion that there are presently

substantial financial difficulties for Newfoundland and Labrador.” That was a

year and a half ago.

portion of the analysis thus far points in the direction of more compensation

for Provincial Court Judges, but we must also consider the present difficulties

the Province is facing. Given the economic realities of the province especially

with the accumulating debt, this Tribunal believes that a salary freeze for

Provincial Court Judges for the first two years of this tribunal's mandate is

warranted, as stated above.”

That's,

in fact, what they recommended, a salary freeze for the first of the four-year

period. What they went on to recommend, based on out-of-date information, fiscal

and economic information, they recommended there be an inflation adjustment for

the last two years, which seemed to them – based on the information of economic

realities available to them when they reported – to be a reasonable thing to do.

All

we're saying on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that given what we all

know of the dire economic fortunes of the province which have fallen upon us in

the last several months that determination by the tribunal is no longer valid.

Reasonable when it was made, but not reasonable today.

The

tribunal considered such information as net debt to GDP ratio, and said this “is

one of the most important influences” – I'm looking at paragraph 145 of the

tribunal report – “on a Provincial government's credit rating.” Well, we might

recall that we just had a credit rating downgrade by Standard & Poor's, put on a

negative watch only weeks ago.

They say

that figure 5, which is found in the report, “… shows that the ratio of net debt

to GDP declined over during most of the 1994/95 to 2017/18 period. Since 2014/15

the net debt ratio has moved up. That upwards movement is principally the result

of large budgetary deficits, which had to be paid for by borrowing. This is the

highest ratio across the provincial governments in Canada.” And that is still

true. In fact, our position has dramatically worsened since then. How

dramatically we don't know, because the Minister of Finance tells us that no

matter how hard his officials work, they can't quite catch up with it.

Again,

at 148, here's what they come around to recommending: “The Tribunal recommends

the salary of Provincial Court Judges remain the same for the first two years of

this Tribunal's mandate ….” That would be April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2019. “For

the April 1 st , 2019 to March 31 st , 2020 period of our

mandate, we recommend an inflationary increase only of 1.6% (commensurate with

the 2018 increase in CPI for all items in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador as calculated by Statistics Canada and reported annually by the

Newfoundland Statistics Agency …. For the period April 1 st , 2020 to

March 31 st , 2021 we recommend an increase based on the balance of the

total annual increase in CPI between 2017 and 2020 inclusive … but subtracting

the 2018 CPI increase amount of 1.6% recommended for the April 1 st ,

2019-March 31 st , 2020 period.

“By this

means judges will ‘share the pain' for a period by losing relative purchasing

power for three years (not an inconsiderable period of time), but ultimately by

‘catching up' in 2020 so as not to lose substantial ground with Maritime Judges

and other comparators.”

Effectively, Mr. Speaker, it is the catching up piece of the advice provided to

government by the tribunal that we take issue with given the conditions we're

now familiar with, although without much accuracy because of reasons stated

earlier to this House by the Minister of Finance. Nonetheless, we're aware of it

in a broad way and we are not in favour with the catching up part of the

recommendations of the tribunal.

Paragraph 150: “If the salary increase recommendations made in this report for

April 1 st , 2019 and April 1 st , 2020, respectively, are not

implemented by the Provincial Government within six months of the date of this

report,” – which was a year ago now, last June – “we recommend that the

Provincial Government pay interest from the date of the respective unpaid amount

of any increase recommended in this report to the date of payment at the prime

rate of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce from time to time.”

I pause

on that for a moment by underlining that, to my mind, that is a statement by the

tribunal itself that anything more than six months is an unreasonable period of

time for the government of the day to bring the report before the Legislature,

as it is doing now a year later, but more than six months to do that would be an

unreasonable period of time and therefore interest should be payable on any

arrears.

Again,

if the judges want to cast about for somebody to blame over this, as I said

earlier several times, we would not have had a problem with the recommendations

and their implementation had they been presented to the House prior to the COVID

pandemic. Now, we have a problem with them. So if the judges want to blame

someone, they can blame the Minister of Justice and the government for not

acting earlier.

I trust,

Mr. Speaker, that I've made our position adequately known. It's a strange

contrast that in circumstances in which the bottom has fallen out of the ship,

that this government would now wish to implement recommendations for salary

increase, which they deprecated and opposed four years in economic circumstances

not nearly so dire. Well, we at least, on the Opposition side of the House, are

aware of the economic circumstances and of the need to take action, in this

case, by not implementing the recommendations of the report.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular

resolution and recognizing the distinct difference between the Executive

legislative branch from the judiciary.

appreciate the comments by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety providing a

very broad overview of the context of how we got here and the tribunal process.

Because the tribunal process of preparing a report on salary and benefits for

Provincial Court judges, this is a standard practice across the entire country

and it's constitutionally required, so it's not something that can be taken

lightly. It came into force following the PEI reference case in 1997. The ruling

forced the federal government and all provincial governments to establish

commissions or tribunals that conform to new constitutional requirements.

The

Supreme Court found to uphold judicial independence. There should be neither the

reality nor the perception that governments may penalize judges financially for

challenging legislation. The most recent report that was submitted on June 6,

2019, had recommended that for the first two years of 2017-2018 there would be a

zero per cent increase, then there would be 1.6 per cent effective 2019 and

approximately 6 per cent the following – which would be the current year, based

on the consumer price index.

The

tribunal must balance judicial independence with the economic realities of the

province. Tribunal decisions are non-binding but they cannot be set aside

lightly. We certainly saw that in the last tribunal that was put forward in the

Wicks Tribunal, number one, where the House voted on the resolution and excluded

salaries. At that time, that was contested in court. Justice Phonse Faour would

have overturned the decision to follow the recommendations of the tribunal when

it came to the salaries that were there, and had overturned the decision in the

House.

The

judiciary ruled in favour of the tribunal's original decision and stated that

was to occur. Judges would have received the remuneration, despite what had been

voted in the House at that particular time. It's not as simple as what the

Member opposite has been putting forward in terms of saying the situation, the

circumstance and the information.

The

context of when we had presented a resolution previously in the House from what

should have been a 2014 report – I remember being an MHA in Opposition at the

time when we had to basically vote on a piece of legislation to extend the

timelines to allow the report to be done by the previous government, and when

this tribunal had come forward, it had been brought forward to the Legislature,

it had been presented, it was the recommendation at the time in 2016 not to

award a salary increase.

As I

said, that was tested by Judge Faour at the time, and it states that there has

to be independence of the judiciary. There are a number of reasons that are

listed in the particular report and I think it's important for me to take some

time in debate to highlight the mandate of the tribunal for the Legislature and

talk a little bit more about some of the initiatives that have been undertaken.

They

have to, under

section 28 of the

Provincial Court Act, 1991 , c.15, as amended, to make recommendations to the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for four-year periods to actually make

this recommendation as to what the salaries and benefits would be. The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed Brad Wicks as chairperson, David Eaton

on behalf of the judges' association and John Whelan on behalf of the provinces

as members of the tribunal under the authority of the act. The Minister of

Justice and Public Safety would have referred the time period of 2017 to 2021.

The hearings of the tribunal took place on January 8 and 9, 2019.

There is

historical context here, as the Minister of Justice and Public Safety has

highlighted that since 1991, they have been adjudicated the appropriate level of

financial security for Provincial Court judges. In 1992, there was the Whalen

Tribunal; 1997, the Roberts Tribunal; 2001, the Hoegg Tribunal; 2006, the Steele

Tribunal; 2010 the Andrews Tribunal; in 2015, there was the Wicks Tribunal; and

then in 2019 reappointment of the