PDF Version

March 16, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 37

The

House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Are the House Leaders

ready?

Admit

strangers.

Order,

please!

Government

Business

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 11.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

That's Motion 10, isn't it?

S. CROCKER:

My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I

meant to call Motion 10, not Motion 11.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker, and thank

you, Government House Leader.

I want

to speak to the report that was tabled yesterday from the Standing Orders

Committee.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I need a

mover and a seconder.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

I move.

SPEAKER:

And a seconder, please.

J. HOGAN:

Seconded by the Government

House Leader.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Sorry, we're all – well, I

shouldn't say we're all a little bit rusty; I'm a little bit rusty from the

break. I'm not going to blame everybody here.

I'll try

it again. This is take three. Three strikes I'm out, though.

I want

to thank all the Members of the Standing Orders Committee and the House of

Assembly staff that worked together to produce this report. I must say it was a

great process. We started with a long list of items, Speaker, and shortened the

list to the Committee's top priorities. Then we had input on options for each

priority from the House of Assembly staff. We debated the pros and cons over a

series of meetings, then came to decisions, which is what you see in the report

today.

I'll

note that the debate was very thoughtful and led to the Committee unanimously

supporting each of the items you see here in the report. I want to note that the

report, the decisions and the conclusions are in line with other jurisdictions

throughout Canada.

The

report has four recommendations. Two of which are to amend the Standing Orders,

and I'll speak about those first. The first amendment is to Standing Order 65 as

it relates to private Members' resolutions. What the Committee has recommended

is two-fold. First, it will reduce the amount of speaking time for a Member from

15 minutes to 10 minutes. The benefit of this should be obvious. Because each

PMR is limited in time, this amendment will allow more Members to speak to each

PMR. This, of course, will lead to a broader range of debate and for more

constituents in this province to have their voice heard through their Member.

Second,

it will allow the Speaker to make an advance ruling on an amendment to a PMR.

This will also allow for more time to be spent in debate because the House will

not have to recess for the Speaker to determine if an amendment is an order or

not.

The

second amendment is to Standing Order 25. All this does is codify the amount of

time a minister can speak during a minister's statement, as well as the speaking

time for a Member of the Official Opposition and for the Third Party to respond.

The time will now be set, as opposed to the Speaker having to make a

determination of the Opposition and Third Party Members after the minister has

spoken and his or her time calculated. It gives more certainty to all Members

speaking under Standing Order 25. I note the prescribed time limits are very

much in line with the average time limits during the last session of the House.

The

third recommendation is that the Speaker enforce Standing Order 48 at all times.

Currently, Members have to be relevant to bills when speaking, but,

historically, for an unknown reason, this didn't apply to money bills. The

Committee decided that the Standing Order should be enforced as written.

Therefore, when any Member speaks, their comments must be relevant and not

extraneous.

I want

to stress this does not reduce the amount of time a Member can speak. All the

Committee is asking is that Members speak to what is relevant. Speak about the

issue that is before the House. Essentially, do the job we are elected to do as

legislators.

cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone would oppose this. They would be

saying they do not want to be relevant in the House of Assembly.

Finally,

the fourth recommendation is to defer votes on Division. This will allow Members

to ensure they are available for a vote. This is not a permanent change. It is a

provisional change in the event we have a COVID situation in the House where a

Member may not be available, immediately, to vote. However, while it is

temporary, we may find that this is a family-friendly amendment, which we might

make permanent at a later date. It will not result in losing any time of debate

because any debate that is ongoing will resume after the deferred vote takes

place.

Again, I

want to thank all Members of the Committee and the House staff for their

collective efforts on this report. I think this brings focus and structure to

our work here in the House, which will allow us, ultimately, to be more

productive for our constituents.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is

with great pleasure that I also comment on this important report that came

through successful, I think, collaboration on the part of all of the Members. As

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety has indicated, it certainly did not

come from just idle chatter. There was very thoughtful debate with respect to

these four recommendations.

I think

when you review the report you can see in the report the recommendations pretty

much speak for themselves. The first recommendation was that the time would be

reduced in debate from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. I think, again, that's a good

recommendation because what it will do, it will allow more Members the

opportunity to speak on issues and certainly that's why we are here, is it not,

to provide free reign for people to have that opportunity to discuss important

topics of the day.

As well,

allowing for advanced ruling on amendments. That, again, is an important

recommendation as well. I think that most people will agree that this is

important because it will allow for more efficiency in the House of Assembly. If

there is the opportunity for the staff and for the Speaker to have advance

notice on amendments, then they will able to lesson the amount of recesses and

the delays that take place because of that. Again, that's certainly, in my view,

is a positive recommendation.

The

recommended amendments to Ministerial Statements, that as well is good. I think

that will go a long way in increasing efficiency in the House of Assembly. I

think we need to do that. We need to see more efficient debate, more opportunity

for us to get at the real core issues that face us here in the House of

Assembly.

Now,

with respect to the issue and the recommendation with respect to the rule of

relevancy. That, we took a lot of time in reviewing this important rule. The

rule of relevancy in debate is important. It already exists in the

Standing Orders . I think that is

something that really needs to be made clear. That rule of relevancy is in the

Standing Orders . It's stipulated in

Standing Order 48(2). That delineates the rule of relevancy for the Newfoundland

and Labrador House of Assembly. I think what's important there is that rule was

placed there – I think it was adopted back in 1951 and it has been unchanged

since then. It's there because of the importance of us keeping our debate

relevant. Irrelevance and needless repetition is not necessarily a good thing.

course, we do know that we have to have latitude. There has to be latitude. I

think the parliamentary practice that we've seen allows for that latitude in

debate on bills and resolutions. There is a long-standing practice for

wide-ranging debate on money bills and wide-ranging debate on Address in Reply

and the budget debate. That is in place; there's no challenge to that. What is

happening with respect to this resolution is that now the Standing Order that is

on the books, which already exists, the Speaker will have the opportunity to

enforce that. That I think is important.

We had

considerable debate and discussion in Committee and one thing that was of utmost

importance to me, as the representative for the Official Opposition on this

Committee, is that there not be any restriction or limitation on freedom of

speech. That would be unacceptable and we would not be able to support anything

of that nature. So there is still that opportunity to have wide-ranging debate.

It means that Members can speak of topics of their choosing when debating money

bills, but, again, it is the discretion of the Speaker.

There is

no limitation here but it does allow that latitude will continue so there is no

fear that will be restricted in any way. As far as that goes, we are in support

of that. We know and we have to recognize there has to be rules and that's why

the Standing Order was put in place many years ago. It can't be just a

free-for-all. In any kind of debate, in any kind of institution, there have to

be guidelines. There have to be rules to guide us and principles to guide us in

our debate. That's all that this is in terms of the Standing Order relevancy

peace.

conclusion, I would just like to say that I'm pleased to support this. I think

that it will lead to more efficient opportunity for people to have debate and

more Members will have that opportunity going forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

listening to the Minister of Justice saying he can't understand why anyone would

have any issue with this bill. Well, I do have a couple of points and I do have

an issue with it, probably not surprising.

Anyway,

the first point I want to raise is on the PMR and reducing from 15 minutes down

to 10. I do agree with that. I think it's a good opportunity for more Members to

be able to participate in Private Members' Day. I would say, in particular, for

the independent Members, of which we have three now, we have three independent

Members here, that in terms of Private Members' Day, I get my Private Members'

Day in 2023, I think, after the Member for Bay of Islands and before the Member

for Lake Melville here. That's when we get our Private Members' Day under the

current system. So we don't get much opportunity to even have that.

If we're

going to now reduce the time on the regular Private Members' Day from 15 minutes

to 10, thus allowing more Members the opportunity to speak, I would've liked to

have seen some sort of a recommendation to say that given the extra time, at the

very least, there would be an allocation for one of the independent Members of

the three to be able to be guaranteed a spot to speak and we could even rotate

through or whatever, but at least to give that opportunity.

Now, in

fairness, we have had Private Members' Days. I have to say the Official

Opposition on different times has come and said, b'ys, if you have anything you

want to say to this, we'll sit down and give you five minutes or whatever. I

really do appreciate that. But there was no mention of it, no discussion, or

maybe there was discussion, I don't know, we're not part of that Committee,

which is another issue, I suppose. But I would like to see that with that

additional allocation that there could be some allocation for the independent

Members to be able to speak to private Members' bills.

The

other point I have, and it's a concern I have, is the point around relevance.

Now, I don't have any issue, Mr. Speaker, with the concept of relevance when it

comes to a piece of legislation being debated here on the floor. Obviously, if

we're talking about ATVs and if I stand up and I start complaining about

education or health care or something, that's obviously not relevant. I get it.

If we're debating ATV legislation, we talk about ATV legislation.

Where I

have the concern, though, is the point in here that it says that this also

applies to money bills. That's where I have a concern and I'm wondering where

this is going, because when you think about it, there are lots of issues that we

hear – well, on all sides I'm sure we hear from our constituents. But, in

particular, Members on the Opposition side, we're tasked with holding

government's feet to the fire and raising issues that are important to the

people of the province that are not necessarily being raised by government

itself.

Obviously, if we are debating legislation – I'll just use, again, ATVs as an

example – then that does not allow me or any Member here the opportunity to talk

about the home heat rebate that I should think should be reinstated for some

people; no opportunity to bring that up.

Now, you

could argue that you could ask a question in Question Period, but there's a

reason why it's called Question Period and not answer period because that, quite

frankly, is not necessarily always a useful exercise.

So the

opportunity, really, to raise these issues in the House of Assembly is when we

get to what we all refer to as a money bill because under a money bill you could

basically talk about whatever you want.

So any

issue that I might have, whether it be the waitlist for people requiring

surgeries; whether it be the announcement yesterday, did it go far enough to

help people in terms of the gas prices; whether it be Bay du Nord; whatever it

might be, when I get to a money bill that's my opportunity to raise those issues

on behalf of people who elected me to do so.

So my

concern, when we talk about relevance and money bills, I'm trying to understand

exactly what that means. I'd like some clarification as to what that means. Does

that mean and will it be interpreted as an example that when we go through the

budgetary process and let's say if government decides they're going to raise

some taxes, we get to a money bill where they're going to – the imposition of

taxes or whatever, that's considered a money bill.

So when

we were talking about the sugar-sweet beverage tax, for example, I stood up, I

think I said I've got some concerns with the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, blah

blah blah; however, now I want to talk about health care because it's a money

bill and some issues I'm having, and I could do it.

So under

what's being proposed here, if we got to a bill like that, is it going to be

said you can talk about the sugar-sweetened beverage tax and if you talk about

anything other than that, you're not relevant? Because in the past, it's a money

bill and I can talk about anything. Now am I going to be told to talk about that

tax and that tax only or, if not, it's not relevant?

that's what this is all about, trying to cut back on debate, trying to limit

Members in their ability to speak up on behalf of their constituents and the

people of the province, then personally I have a big problem with that. I really

do.

At the

end of the day, we're only sitting in this House – I mean, we're only here for a

couple of months now in the spring. We're only here for like three weeks in the

fall. It's not like we don't have the time to do it. We can sit in the evenings

if we want to, if we need to. We've always gotten through it before. If this is

some kind of an attempt to shut down debate and to prevent Members from raising

issues on behalf of their constituents, because there will never be an

opportunity to raise them, then I have a big problem with that. I think the

people of the province would have a problem with that.

I mean,

this is supposed to be a democracy. We can't get into the business of trying to

control Members to say you can't talk about this, you can't talk about that and

we don't want to hear about this. I saw enough of that in these controlled media

things that have been going on during COVID and everything else. That's not good

for democracy either. Oh, you can ask one question and one follow-up question

that we see.

To my

mind, that's not democratic; it's really not. There used to be a time that a

minister would make themselves available and the media would have at them or

her; ask whatever they wanted. Not this oh, you can talk about this subject. I'm

here to talk about this; don't ask me about that. That's where we're going.

That's where we've been going the last couple of years. I'm really concerned

about it from a democratic point of view.

I know

that myself and my colleague here from Humber - Bay of Islands, I can remember a

year or two ago and you called a special session of the House of Assembly and we

weren't consulted on any of it. You had your couple of days, your Question

Period and whatever, and we were left out of it. We weren't given any time. So

we used the adjourn motion, because you were allowed to debate the motion to

adjourn.

We took

that opportunity to say, no, I don't want to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, because I

wanted to talk about blah blah blah, health care. I wanted to talk about these

issues, that issue, and we used that tool that was there in the rules. And what

happened? The minute that we did that, next time we come back to the House a

motion comes in the House: No longer allowed to debate the motion to adjourn.

Trying to shut us down. Well, they did shut us down on that particular aspect.

Now we

are seeing this here and I'm not going to support it unless I have – it is fine

to talk about latitude and all that. I wasn't part of these discussions, but I

would certainly like clarification that if a money bill comes to the floor and I

could talk about whatever I want that concerns my district and the people that

elected me, I don't want to be told you're not relevant because we're talking

about a tax and you can only talk about that tax and that only. If that is the

intent, I don't support it.

If we're

going to have latitude, as my colleague from Harbour Main says it is, if that is

the intent that there will still be lots of latitude and I can talk and we can

all talk about issues of importance to our district, then I don't have a problem

with it. I don't have a problem with having to stay relevant and being called on

relevancy. If we're talking about a piece of legislation in health care, I have

no problem saying you can't talk about education. If you're talking about the

ATVs, you can't talk about child care. No problem, we all agree with that. But

if the intent is to shut down legitimate debate on money bills, then I will not

support it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to stand in support of my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands and I

just want to go back to what he mentioned about the closure bill. We were in

here for a special debate and there were questions. I wanted to ask one

question. The Member wanted to ask one question. The questions were on health

care. I had a person who couldn't get eye surgery during COVID. Needed the eye

surgery; everybody said he could do it; couldn't get eye surgery.

I asked

for one question. Here is the question I want to ask. I need it on the record to

see what the minister can do to get this done. The government at the time – the

Liberal government – would not let me ask one question to help a citizen – who

was going blind – and the Member had the same concern. We had three days and

wanted one question each. That is it. I gave the question. Here is the question.

We were stopped.

When

they introduced the closure motion to adjourn, I stood up and I spoke for 40

minutes. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands stood up and spoke for 25 or 30

minutes. The next day, the same thing, I stood up again because that's the rules

of the House; the Member stood up and spoke about his concerns of health care.

We did it for three days.

We were

up to a meeting with the Premier, and the deputy premier was there, and we were

talking about we have to have collaboration. We walked back in this House that

next day – I don't know if it was the next day or a few days later – we walked

back in this House and what was introduced? There were amendments to the closure

motions that we couldn't stand up and speak on closure.

weren't consulted. We sat down with the Premier and the deputy premier, at the

time, who was the Government House Leader, and said we have to have

collaboration. We walked in the House of Assembly, then, all of a sudden, here

is the Standing Orders that they

already had changed, stood up and voted against it.

You want

me – and I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I can speak on his

behalf also.

P. LANE:

Absolutely.

E. JOYCE:

You want us to say trust me –

trust me.

I'll

just give you a great example, Mr. Speaker. There are times here when they're

saying let's leave it up to the Speaker. There are times here Speakers in this

House stifle debate. I make no bones about it. I remember times here when

questions were shutdown because the Speaker didn't like the question; although

there was 104 asked on the same issue, the Speaker shut it down. This idea of

trust me in this House is not there. It's just not there.

When you

bring this issue up to say, no, no, it's not relevant and it's not relevant on a

money bill, I'll just give an example. We brought up the sugar tax. If you bring

up the sugar tax here and talk about it, it's a money bill. I'm not allowed to

talk about the effects that the sugar will have for people with diabetes.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes you are.

E. JOYCE:

You say, yes you are. Who are

you to say it is? You're saying it's up to the discretion.

I say to

the – and I won't name the Member – but I'm saying this is the issue. You're

saying you are and here we're saying we'll leave it up to the Speaker for

discretion. Why change something on a money bill? We have legislation in this

House now that's on a fixed schedule. We can't go past that fixed schedule, it's

legislation. We all agreed to that legislation.

What

we're trying to do now – if it's the Committee or the government, however it's

going to happen – is say in between that fixed

schedule we're going to limit

your debate. We're going to bring in the bills that we want discussed and you

can't go beyond that discussion. It's wrong. It's fundamentally wrong.

I've

been in this House of Assembly, I think, there's one Member here longer than me

in this House. I first got elected in '89. I used to come here and listen to the

debates in '89; since '89 if it's a money bill, you could speak on any issue you

want, since '89, since I first started coming to this House; '89 when I used to

be up in the galleries watching. Then in '99, when I got elected again, I'd come

into this House, if you had a money bill, you could discuss – if you had issues

you wanted to discuss, you still got the same time limit that you would have. No

time limit has changed.

There

are many times that you have issues that's related to funds. There are many

times that there's a money bill brought in this House that has implications down

the road, but if this here is approved – we need clarification like the Member

for Mount Pearl – Southlands said. If this is a fact, that you can speak on the

money bill but you can't speak of the implications of the money bill down the

road, it's just fundamentally wrong.

If you

want to talk about stifling debate again, if you want to talk about stifling

debate, here's another example of stifling debate.

I can

give you a good example. If we want to stand up any time on a money bill and I

want to talk about nurse practitioners, I can't do it.

P. LANE:

Cataract surgery.

E. JOYCE:

Cataract surgery, I can't do

it. Even though it's related to a money bill, but the money bill may be for some

other reason. It's tradition. It's tradition anywhere around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE:

I hear the Members opposite

agree with me, because a lot of you were over on this side before. Mr. Speaker,

you know what I'm talking about. Once you get up on a money bill you can speak

about any issue in your district. It has been tradition in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Once upon a time.

E. JOYCE:

Once upon a time, you're

right, yes.

Then the

problem with it is you're trying to change it now.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's right.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

You're right. You're trying

to change it because you want to stifle debate. That's the issue. You want to

stifle debate.

Anybody

in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and we get it, and all the Opposition and the people who were in

Opposition over here said why don't you bring this up? But I can tell the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador right now, and even the backbenchers and even the

government Members and ministers, if this is brought in here, forget that saying

you have to bring this up because your limitations are being decreased on a

regular basis. It's being decreased. Trust me.

what's happening now, we're taking this Legislature now – I remember back when

we were in government and there were some decisions that were made; I was in the

backbenches and I was part of government at the time and some decisions were

made, I remember people who have been around with me said: Be careful what

you're doing because some day you will be over here; some day there are going to

be issues when you're in Opposition, which are on this side now.

I'm

speaking on behalf of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, we had

discussions on this, that when you have to start stifling debate and you're over

here, you're going to start complaining that you can't speak up, just remember,

you're bringing this in. You're bringing this in right now.

So I'm

putting this government on warning now that if you want to be stifling me and

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, you're

going to have a hard time calling relevance, because I can tell you that I have

issues that I'm going to bring up.

It's

tradition; it's parliamentary tradition in this House and in all the Houses

across Canada that if it's a money bill you can speak on an issue that's related

to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

J. HOGAN:

That's not true, though.

E. JOYCE:

I hear the Member over there

saying it's not true. I've yet to be stopped on a money bill.

So my

question is if it's not true, why change it?

J. HOGAN:

It's not true in every

jurisdiction.

E. JOYCE:

It's not true in every

jurisdiction. Okay. But why change it? Why change it if it's never an issue?

always have a Parliamentary Calendar that we have live by. So if we can't change

the Parliamentary Calendar – we can, but if we don't change the Parliamentary

Calendar, we can debate whatever we like within that time. But what's happening

P. LANE:

(Inaudible) to be criticized.

E. JOYCE:

What?

P. LANE:

Don't want to be criticized.

E. JOYCE:

Don't want to be criticized;

don't want issues brought up. That's the bottom line; that is the bottom line. I

just hope that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

understand what's happening here in this Legislature now and what's happening

with this.

anybody wants to stand up and try to stifle debate, I can tell you I'm one

person against it. The Member for Mount Pearl Southlands is against it. I guess

there are other people who can stand up and speak as they see fit.

I just

ask that the government have a second thought at what they're going to bring

forth in the Standing Orders , bring

forth in the House. Let's keep this House the way it was, that people got an

opportunity on many occasions to bring up issues on money bills, because, Mr.

Speaker, once we start stifling debate then what we're going to have to do is

just sit down and tell the people of this province you have no avenue to bring

up any concerns that you may have.

I'll

close on that, Mr. Speaker, and if the issue is that you can't speak and leave

it up to the Speaker to decide what the relevancy is on a money bill, I am

totally against it.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to add commentary to this Standing Orders resolution. I listened to the

Member from Mount Pearl - Southlands and Humber - Bay of Islands and I don't

disagree with everything that they're saying. I do think it is kind of a stretch

because we're the Official Opposition, we want leeway. We want leeway of the

House and Speaker, when a money bill is here, to be able to branch off and to

talk about various issues. If what they're saying is accurate, no one in this

House would support that.

As I

said to the Government House Leader yesterday when we were having a – well, it

was a private conversation. I said to him and the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands made the same comment then. I said, you should always remember that

you're not going to always be on that side of the House, which is true and he

agreed, and we all know that's the way this House works.

When

you're bringing in these Standing Orders, my concern and our caucus's concern

and our representative, the Member for Harbour Main, who represented us on the

Committee, we all talked about this at great length. You don't want to limit

yourself but, in actual fact, the ironic

part is there is nothing being changed.

This always existed. We had a lot of conversation when that was brought out and

explained to us.

So,

really, there are no changes coming in effect other than the fact that I'm

taking it and we're taking it more as a warning that Speakers and Deputy Speaker

and I suppose Chair of Committee or whoever is governing the House at that given

time will be more stringent, I guess, on trying to keep some relevance. But, in

saying that, I do hope that in your role as Speaker and our Deputy Speaker as

well there is still a broad range.

Again,

I'll go back to my conversation with the Government House Leader yesterday and

he made a reference of my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans who made

references talking about the Premier's office in his speech. The Member from

Exploits also had a rant about that, too. But he said that is still relevant

because it is about spending money; it is about spending funds. If that is the

way it is going to be governed, I have no problem with that.

I don't

think the House is designed to do stuff in here that you can't do out there.

I'll leave that at that and people here can read between the lines what I'm

saying. I have heard stuff said in this House that probably should never have

been said in here or out there. You would never get away with it out there. So

what you can't get away with out there, you shouldn't do it in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN:

I strongly feel that way and

I think that a lot of Members in this House also agree. We have seen that

happen. That is the unfortunate part sometimes. I'm all about debate. I would

like to think we're going to get a lot of leeway. I do expect that leeway,

because you can tie pretty well anything to government spending. There's not

much you can't put to government spending.

So I

guess what I'm saying, I agree with some of their concerns, but I don't think

they're founded. I sure hope this is not about muting debate. I do hope that

it's just about the quality of debate and what's being debated. Like I said, we

can talk about any issue that's important to anyone in this caucus here and tie

it to money. I do hope that we do have the leeway of the House to be able to do

that. It's no place to be personal and it's no place to talk about stuff that's

totally not related to anything other than your own personal agenda. I don't

think that's what this House is designed for. I don't think that's what people

elected us to do.

I think

we're elected to come in here and represent the people of our districts, and a

lot of that is tied to the financial well-being of the province. It affects

everyone's daily lives. We're living it now with the cost of living on the

street, the cost of fuel, the cost of home heating oils, the cost of groceries.

That's what we should be in here debating, improving the lives of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We don't have to go other routes.

I do

entrust you, Speaker, and future Speakers down the path when I may not be here –

there will be hopefully be a Tory government in place. I know that might not be

what the Members opposite want to hear. I do hope that Standing Orders and the

spirit – I guess I'm a traditionalist, too. I've been around this place a long

time and I know the Standing Orders and precedents and tradition carries a lot

of weight in this House. The Minister of Education who was a Speaker himself and

I'm sure he can agree with what I'm saying. It's all about traditions, all about

parliamentary – you go back and you research. I know we have debates here on

private Members' resolutions all going on precedents of what was decided or what

rulings were made. Speakers depend a lot on former rulings.

I do

hope that these Standing Orders, when someone here is stopped for relevance,

it's valid and it's not contentious. I think it's fine to bring a bit of order

to the House, but I do hope we do get the leeway to be able to – because we're

representing our constituents. It's not so much a personal agenda. I mean, I get

up here on many rants; very seldom you'll find my rants on Facebook – not my

Facebook. It might be someone else's, but it will not be mine.

Again,

being a traditionalist, I think it's very important to debate the issues that

matters to the people that we represent. I think if we all do that and we're

given the leeway, which I do hope, based on the fact there's no changes being

made to these Standing Orders, other than the fact it's being clarified, I hope

we do get that leeway.

Other

than that, the rest of those Standing Orders, we're in agreement with everything

else. We agreed with this in general, but I think from my end of it and just my

view as being Opposition House Leader over here, and myself and the Member from

Harbour Main have had a lot of conversations and it is something that I'm very

familiar with, I just wanted to have those few words and put our stamp on it

that we do still expect to be given the leeway to debate the issues in this

House that is important to the residents of our province and that money bills

not be restricted. I am assuming and I trust that that won't happen.

Thank

you very much.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I am

going to start some comments with a definition. I just looked it up on Google –

anyone's free to do that – on the word “debate.” As a noun a debate is “a formal

discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in

which opposing arguments are put forward.” For example, “last night's debate on

the Education Bill.” As a verb, it's described as you can “argue about (a

subject), especially in a formal manner.” And, as an example, “the board debated

his proposal.”

So I

think that's quite relevant for us because when we talk about a debate, which is

what we're doing here – we're debating legislation; we're debating motions. It's

about staying focused on the topic at hand: the proposal, the motion, the bill.

As sitting as the honour that I had to sit as Speaker during two Assemblies,

relevance was something that I felt was very important and I often would ask the

Members to think about that in their remarks. I mean, otherwise, why are we here

for any particular case and occasion?

And,

yes, there were situations where I will say that I ruled on a couple of

different points on relevance. I also ruled on motions that had been proposed,

debated and passed, concluded in this House and then were tried to be

reintroduced over the course of a money bill or anything else. That,

essentially, is just wasting the time of the House. That's why I ruled in that

occasion.

So I

welcome the guidance on relevance. I do support my colleague's point, from Mount

Pearl - Southlands, on the aspect of relevance. And there is

interpretation.

Let's face it, we can never think about or consider the wide breadth of

situations, of contextual comments that could be interpreted as being relevant

or not relevant. I feel that it's important and it's incumbent upon us, as

legislators, to challenge ourselves, even if it's a money bill. I'm sure that

most of us can think how, if there's a particular issue, we can generate it back

to the focus of financial policy of this executive and what they're doing and

tying whatever's bothering us to that point. I think you just have to keep

drawing it, again with the money bill, with the financial aspects of it.

I think

it will help us up our game. As you say, it's there now; it's just a matter of

being consistent a little bit more often in things like

Standing Orders .

I also

agree with my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands on the PMR. I can remember

one time I actually introduced a PMR and it was so popular that we actually,

with the consent of the House, continued after that 5 o'clock time that we have

as a hard finish, because we all wanted to speak to it. I think there will be

those occasions, but I think reducing – not think – I feel that reducing our

allocated time to 10 minutes is a good way to encourage more opportunity,

particularly as an independent. Again, as my colleagues both said, there's no

reason why anyone in this House shouldn't have an opportunity to speak to a

matter if it's going to be relevant and if they have some meaningful

contribution.

I also

thank the Opposition, because on the Wednesdays where I've experienced on this

side of the House, I've said there's been good co-operation. I've been able to

reach out and say I'd like to speak to a matter. I feel that's in the right

direction.

I still

believe there will be many occasions where Members will say: I'm just going to

speak for five minutes. I just want to get a comment in on this particular

matter and so on. Docking it down from 15 to 10 is important when you've only

got some two hours. I think that's another great move.

I did

want to ask a question of the minister on the last point, the deferral of vote

on Division. I did speak to one of the Members of the Committee this morning

because I anticipated this might be coming up today. I understand that if a vote

is to be deferred it would have to have the agreement of three party leaders or

the party leaders that exist in the House. I'm trying to anticipate how that

might have occurred, and I'm just going to go back to some very recent history.

November, one of our last days that we sat before we rose for Christmas, the

lotteries bill. I know yours truly, other Members around me and the Opposition

mounted several serious comments and concerns that we were hearing across the

province, brought forward these comments in debate during second reading and

then when it went to third reading, we took the opportunity, as we're able to,

to speak to it again.

I note

that on the government side there were several Members missing. When the

Government House Leader moved to go to third reading, they frankly didn't have

enough people in the chairs to pass that motion, if the Opposition was fully

opposed to it. I'm just trying to understand what would've changed now, had this

Standing Order been in place at that time, to effect what the outcome would've

been there. Would that have been deferred?

I mean,

when Division is called the bells ring, we have 10 minutes for everyone to

assemble. I remember seeing several on the other side on the phones gathering

the Members in, because, obviously, everybody's busy, there are things going on,

but it really is under the control of the Government House Leader as to when

that critical decision, that critical vote is going to occur. No one else, that

person controls it.

having served as Speaker twice, can appreciate there is some responsibility or

opportunity as is indicated, but really it's the Government House Leader that

can make that call. I just wondered how this might be different if this is

incorporated.

So thank

you for the opportunity. I'm really glad to see that we are taking time to look

at the Standing Orders . I feel it's

really important as Legislatures evolve and as we mature and learn from others,

it's really good to take a look at our own rules of engagement on debate.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll

just take a second, I'm just going to address the point that the Member for Lake

Melville just made. I think, Mr. Speaker, with reference to deferred vote, that

was certainly a consideration that we took in when you look at COVID-related

circumstances in this House right now if we were to find ourselves, especially

in the spring sitting, with COVID still a presence among us, it would give us

that opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, what would happen is if the three House Leaders weren't able to come to

an agreement on a time, the Speaker would rule. So it's not left into the hands

of the Government House Leader, it's an agreement what would be between the

three House Leaders and if there was a circumstance that we couldn't agree, the

Speaker would make a ruling.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville. Oh, sorry, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Close, close, Mr. Speaker,

he's my neighbour.

I will

speak to this here. I'm happy to see that we're going to give more Members the

opportunity to speak in PMRs. I know I introduced a PMR and there were more

people who'd like to speak, obviously, and you can tell. Unfortunately, there is

limited time and limited opportunity. So giving more people an opportunity to

express their thoughts and stuff on a PMR is really good. A PMR generally is

good debate. I think that it's really healthy and important to give more

opportunity to people there. So I'm really happy to see that change there now.

Also

with the deferred vote, we did have a lot of conversations around that and how

to make the House operate, an ability to operate in these unprecedented times.

Any Member can suddenly have to leave while we're in a sitting and end up

isolating at home, so given that opportunity – that was one of things we did

mention, myself and my colleague, the Official Opposition House Leader, that we

wanted to make it as fair as possible. We did have a really extensive

conversation on that. It's not left in the hands of one House Leader or anything

like that; it is basically consent from all parties in that way.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the situation with COVID, you want to be here,

obviously, there are important things that have to be voted on, so having that

opportunity to defer that, it's not new. It is more common – from our research

and everything like that – practice in the federal system than it is here in the

province. It is a good tool to have during these unprecedented times during

COVID. It will stick around after, and that's to be seen by the Committee, but

for this sitting right now we have it temporarily, from my understanding.

relevancy and money bills: relevancy is important but having latitude is also

important, too, because some Members, each one of us have our own

characteristics for trying to explain something. Everyone is different; everyone

is unique in that way. Giving a bit of latitude is really important as well,

trying to get to the point, trying to get to the story, trying to express your

thoughts, because everyone in this House does it differently and everyone has

their own characteristics about doing it. So making sure to have the latitude

and also the ability to understand everyone's unique way of speaking, everyone's

unique way of expressing themselves, we do have to take that into consideration,

too.

Some

people have a roundabout way of getting to the point. They want to get to the

point but they have their own unique way of doing it. That is something that I

hope, Mr. Speaker, you do take into consideration when granting latitude to

somebody as well, because you might not see it right away but when you get to

the end of their thought, then you understand what they're trying to say. We

have to take those latitudes into consideration when we do talk about relevancy.

I know I

have my own roundabout way of doing things. My colleagues do as well. The

uniqueness has to be taken into consideration as well. That's the beauty about

this House, we all come from different corners of the province and we all have

our own unique ways of speaking and expressing ourselves. When latitude comes to

it, it's very important that we do take into consideration, especially with the

money bills where money is a broad topic to talk about in this province,

because, technically, the root of everything we do discuss, at the end of the

day, is money related.

So we do

have to make sure that those latitudes are taken into consideration. I know that

there's no actual change we're going to vote on, but I know it's been asked of

yourself, Mr. Speaker, to enforce that Standing Order. I just ask that when

speaking with latitude, make sure to take in a bit of consideration of how

people express themselves because sometimes it is a roundabout way.

With

that, though, I do really like the change for PMRs and deferred voting under

these COVID times is really important. As we adapt and change with the changing

times around us, we have to make sure that we are flexible in that way as well.

Anyway,

with that, I take my seat.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I just

speak to the issue of relevance and probably one of the most challenging

aspects, when I first became an MHA, is listening to debate on money bills and

walking out and coming back in and hearing a speaker and wondering are we on the

money bill because you could talk about everything.

That was

difficult and I still try to keep my comments relevant, but I will say this:

It's important as well – and I take the comments by my colleagues in the back

here with regard to this in the leeway. My main concern is that there should

still be leeway. For Members, if they wish to bring up specific issues that may

be tangentially related to the money bill itself or to the budget, I'm concerned

always that when there's that vagueness around it as to what that means. That's

my only real concern here is that the Members do raise valid points in terms of

when else do you get to bring up certain issues, whether it's in a PMR or

otherwise.

I would

certainly like to see some clarification around what relevance exactly that

we're talking about here. And that it doesn't, indeed, stifle debate. For the

most part, I try to keep my own comments relevant to it. It's the background I

was brought up in in terms of my previous life – three minutes, get to the

point, sit down. I appreciate that. At the same time, I understand, certainly

within this House of Assembly, that there was leeway given and in the time that

I've been here, I can see the value of that.

course, there are outer limits but, at the same time, it's important, especially

if you're an independent Member who doesn't have the ability to ask questions

all that often, the opportunity that the Official Opposition and the Third Party

would have. So I think in some ways during money bills or during the budget

debate that they would have that opportunity to bring those issues forward.

Really, that is their only avenue or one of their only avenues. That is my only

caution with that and I leave it at that.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers if

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Thank

you for everyone who contributed to the debate this morning: the Members for

Harbour Main, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Humber - Bay of Islands, Conception Bay

South, Lake Melville, the Government House Leader, Labrador West and St. John's

Centre.

I just

want to make a couple of comments after hearing everyone speak this morning.

There was some comments about stifling debate and limiting time but if you look

at what the report does, just for example, the amendments to the PMR, it allows

for more debate. The point of this report is not to limit what people can say

and how many people can speak; it is to enhance debate, focus debate and make

sure we're doing our job here as legislators.

There

are also some concerns about what is relevant and the definition of relevance.

Relevance is certainly in the eye of the beholder and, Speaker, that is going to

be your job to determine what is and what isn't relevant. But I would sort of

echo the comments from the Member for Conception Bay South that it is hard not

to be relevant when you're speaking about a money bill.

I don't

think any Members who complain about the report this morning should predetermine

that they are already irrelevant. Let's let the debate happen and determine and

make sure that the Members are relevant and don't assume that they have already

crossed the threshold into irrelevance. I think we should give them all a chance

a see how this shakes out.

There

were also some comments about some worry about the democratic process but since

I've been here about a year now, this is the prime example of how democracy

works. Members from government side, the Opposition side and the Third Party got

together in the Committee and met on numerous occasions and we had fulsome

debate and came back with a unanimous report. If that is not the true definition

of democracy, I don't know what is. To complain about democracy when all Members

of a Committee from three different parties have agreed, that just doesn't make

sense to me.

There

was a question about why we're doing this. I think it was the Member for Lake

Melville said it will increase the quality of debate, and that is what we're

here for. We are here to focus debate.

Just to

dumb it down a little bit, if you're arguing about who is a better hockey

player, Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux, talking about Bobby Orr doesn't solve

the problem. It doesn't answer the question. So we are here talking about a

piece of legislation; let's talk about the legislation. Let's not talk about

something that is going to waste time and not allow us to accomplish what we're

here to do. The correct answer is Wayne Gretzky, so we don't need to debate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN:

Finally, on the issue with

relevance, we're debating something here but we're not actually changing

anything. The Standing Order has been for a long, long time from what I

understand and, now, we're not debating whether we're changing it; we're here to

tell Members of the House and members of the public that we aren't changing it.

We're leaving it as is. That is how it should work. That's how we're asking the

Speaker to apply it in the future.

With

that, those are my comments, Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

All

those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 11.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the Deputy Government House Leader, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this

House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, March 16, 2022,

but shall instead meet at 2 p.m., on today, for Routine Proceedings and to

conduct government business and that, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker

shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 45, granting of Interim Supply to

Her Majesty.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering the related resolution and Bill 45,

An Act Granting To Her

Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

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

follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her

Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial

year ending March 31, 2023 the sum of $2,754,562,200.”

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

My God,

it's wonderful to be able to stand up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. DINN:

I can't start talking about

this unless I say that my thoughts and prayers go out to those in the Ukraine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. DINN:

It really puts everything in

perspective, what you see on TV, what you see that's happening every day, every

minute, every hour, is just unbelievable. So my thoughts and prayers, as I am

sure everyone in this House, go out to those in the Ukraine and those with

family and relatives that are dealing with that. Not easy for sure.

We're

talking about Interim Supply. Of course, we know Interim Supply is to get us to

budget time. As most people spoke about the other day, yesterday, when speaking

to this, they spoke about the bill is there to keep the lights on and to make

sure employees are paid and to make sure all bills are paid.

I don't

think any of us have an issue with supporting that, but there's another issue

that we need to be focusing on and that's the cost of living. The cost of living

has gone through the roof here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know government

presented a plan yesterday, a five-point plan, to help address the cost of

living. That plan certainly focused on some vulnerable populations within

Newfoundland and Labrador, no doubt about it. Those are populations that need

help, need assistance. A lot of them needed that prior to seeing these

skyrocketing fuel prices and cost of living.

But

there's another segment that we've missed, we've ignored, we're not dealing

with. I'm sure everyone in this House, since yesterday, has gotten many emails

or phone calls saying what was done yesterday did not go far enough. No one is

disagreeing with it, but it did not go far enough.

With

every program that was announced yesterday, or most of them, there's a

threshold. There are thresholds for when a program kicks in. So you have to be

at this level, or not above this level of income to receive any funding or

assistance. Then you have those who are just above that threshold, whether it's

seniors on fixed income, whether it's the working poor, that family who has two

or three children who are just above that threshold. We've done nothing to help

them. We've done nothing to ease the burden on them. We've known this for a

while, we've seen the histograms of the gas prices going up and we've seen that

effect on the goods and services that we buy on a regular basis.

This

time last year, a litre of gas was around $1.38. So in just a year, we've hit

over $2; we're still hovering around $1.90. That's in the range of a 45 per cent

increase and that affects everyone. That affects everything. A simple dozen eggs

last year, you might get it for $3.80. Now, it's $5.80. Again, another 40-odd

per cent increase.

consider myself not doing too bad. I have an income, my wife has an income, I

have three wonderful daughters, but I actually find myself now looking at the

prices. Well, think about those families on one income, think about those

families who are not hitting that threshold, they're just above it. We've done

nothing to help them. Think about the seniors who are just above that threshold

on a fixed income or fixed pensions. They're seeing no assistance.

talked about a home heating rebate. That has worked in the past, and there's

nothing happening now. I've talked to the seniors who have told me that last

month or the month before they usually pay around $700 or $800 to fill up their

tank, now it's hovering near $1,000 on a fixed income, on a pension. What do you

do? It's $300 a month extra just for fuel. Where does that come from? Who's

helping them ease the burden?

No one's

asking for a handout, no one's asking for a handout, but we're at a time where

they need a hand up right now. They need a hand up to get through this. This

increase in the gas prices and the increase in the cost of living. We've failed

to do that; government has failed to do that.

They've

certainly started to deal with the most vulnerable, no doubt. Nobody, as I've

said, is arguing that point, but we're failing the working poor. Those out there

who make a salary, who budget every cent, and now they have to pay more that

they don't have. They're delving into some of their savings now to get through.

really need – and I hope we see it, we should've seen it by now but I hope going

forward, I'm hoping, I'd love to hear at dinner hour a new announcement on some

tax relief or something to help our average working families out there. They're

a big part of our tax base. They've paid in. We've all paid in. Maybe it's time

we can pay out a bit to help them through this.

As I

said at the start, everyone in this House, I'm sure, has gotten the calls since

yesterday – everyone. I'm in a district that's a good working-class district,

but I'm getting the calls from there; people are struggling with the prices.

I went

out the other day – well, a couple of weeks ago I was asked: Can you run in? My

wife asked me to pick it up, which happens a lot – pick up this, pick up that. I

ran in to a local grocery store to get one of those single-serving salads

(inaudible) like that.

I went

in and I looked at it on the shelf, no lie – and anyone who buys, someone who

eats healthy like I do all the time, you pick it up. It's mostly lettuce with a

few of those little cherry tomatoes tossed on top. Maybe if it's really low

calorie it would have some artificial bacon bits. I jest in saying this – I say

that because I can afford it – but think about people going in to get that who

can't afford that healthy eating.

That

salad was $11-and-something. That's amazing. So now we have our average

individual working family out there trying to support them on a fixed income or

an income that hasn't increased, and we've come in with a plan – government has

come in with a plan – to deal with the most vulnerable. But we've forgotten, or

government has forgotten, about the common, hard-working Newfoundlander and

Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - St. George's.

S. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

great to have an opportunity to speak on this Interim Supply motion here today

in the House. Interim Supply, as other Members have mentioned, is an opportunity

to discuss financial issues. Usually we've had a wide-ranging debate. I think

that's important as well, because it's hard to distinguish between things that

are financial. Many things are relevant in terms of a debate like this,

especially on a budget motion.

Just for

listeners at home, the fiscal year ends the end of March so we haven't passed

the budget for next year yet so, in the interim, we have to provide for funds to

continue the operation of government, and that is what we are doing here in this

Interim Supply motion. We're approving, I think, about 25 to 30 per cent of the

budget this year. In terms of about how much, about $2 billion – I'm not sure

what; I don't have the bill here with me.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

S. REID:

It is $2.7 billion this year

we're approving. So it is a considerable amount of money, but that is all part

of the budget debate. This is just a preapproval of an amount so that government

can continue with the operations. It is important that this motion be passed

soon because we're approaching the end of the fiscal year. I think the date that

we have to have it approved so that things can continue is maybe March 21 or 22,

around there, so that government employees continue to get their cheques and

business continues as usual, so those sorts of things. That is what we are doing

today.

There

are a few issues that I want to talk about and a few things I want to mention.

One of those is the volunteer effort in Stephenville related to Ukraine. They

had several events. As I was thinking about what I was going to say, I was

listening to the debate on relevance as well. I wondered was what I was going to

say be relevant in this type of debate. I guess the connection here is that if

you have volunteer activities happening, it impacts the amount of revenue that a

government has to spend. Also, it relates to expenditures that the government is

making through the department. So I think there are ways to relate most things,

even things that are happening on our districts, to this type of finance motion

that we're dealing with today.

I just

wanted to mention what's happening in Stephenville. There's a large number of

Ukrainians in the Stephenville - Bay St. George area. A number of people are

working there in Stephenville - Bay St. George area. Some of them work in the

agricultural industry there, in dairies and things like that. Others are dance

instructors; others are family members of Newfoundlanders who've gone to work in

Ukraine and came back and married people while over there. There's a significant

population.

A group

of volunteers have got together and they're doing some concerts to raise funds

to help Ukrainian refugees who want to settle in Newfoundland in particular, in

the Bay St. George, West Coast area. They've had several events. I know other

Members of the House have been supportive of this. The Member for Stephenville -

Port au Port and the Member for Bay of Islands have been involved in some of the

organizing meetings as well. It's something that has support from a number of

people.

I just

want to say it's great to see that type of volunteer effort in our community,

because it's so important and it helps very much in supporting our area and our

communities. I just wanted to give a hats off on that.

As well,

I listened to the Member, the person who spoke before me, and he mentioned that

he knows other people are hearing these calls and concerns from their

constituents as well. I would say I can verify that, as one Member of the

government side, I've heard these calls as well. I see messages, calls, emails

and things like that.

It's

certainly an issue, especially in rural areas of the province such as Bay St.

George South or Codroy Valley, which I represent. People often live in rural

areas and they drive to either Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Corner Brook

sometimes, and they have a lot of expense in terms of travelling. These high gas

prices are really impacting them and the way they live. But I want to say that

what the government did yesterday in its announcement was a good first step. It

was something that could be done immediately with programs that are already set

up, easy to implement and impacted some of the most severely impacted by these

gas prices. So it's a good first step and I know we'll be working towards other

options as well.

One

other thing that the Opposition brought up yesterday – I guess there are

immediate things we do. There are things we do in the short term and then there

are long-term things that we do as a government and we do as a society and

economy, as we work towards dealing with the situation that we are in.

Some

people talked about oil development. I'm a supporter of offshore oil

development. I think this government has taken a strong stand on encouraging the

future developments as well. I think we have some of the cleanest oil in the

world here. Most of the oil off our coast is what they call sweet crude. It's

less carbon. If you burn oil or use gas, this is the most environmentally

friendly of any oil in the world, amongst most friendly. I would say it's

ethical oil as well.

I think

what we have to look at is if we stop producing what are the other options.

Where would we be supporting oil produced in a less ethical way, less ethical

environment, political situation? Those are questions that we have to ask

ourselves as a country when we talk about offshore oil in this province and

development of offshore oil. Those are some of the issues.

I think,

as well, in terms of long-term things, I think one of the things this increase

in the cost of living, the cost of food in our stores is I think it encourages

us to look at how we get our food, where we get it from and the importance of

having a agriculture industry here in this province that can supply the food we

need in a cost-effective manner. I think part of that is our sectors have to be

innovative.

I talked

to some farmers in the Codroy Valley a week or so ago and they were talking

about the cost of fertilizer because part of fertilizer is made with petroleum.

One of the options they were looking at is fertilizers made of products from

fish waste and things like that, how they could look at other options.

So I

think those are the sorts of things that we have to look at as we face these

challenges.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Chair.

certainly appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House and represent the

District of Ferryland during this debate of Interim Supply. It's certainly a

great honour indeed.

Just

touching on some of the issues that we discussed since yesterday since we've

started on the debate on Interim Supply. First of all, I'd like to thank some of

the Members on the Opposition, for sure, for when you make calls or you respond

to calls, we do that out of respect. We all respect each other's time and

efforts, but sometimes when we make a call, we're calling for our constituents

to get some issues addressed and not responding is not acceptable, in my mind.

I'm at this job to represent the constituents of my district and to make a text

or make an email and then some of the people on our side will say, well, you're

better off putting it in an email. If you put it in an email they can ATIPP it

and if they didn't respond, you know. But if you send a text you don't have to

because you can't ATIPP it.

You

should respond, and I'm not saying you've got to respond right away because

that's not the way it is, but not responding to a text or not getting back to

you is not acceptable. I do appreciate the people that, when you do send out

texts, that you do get back. I texted someone the other day and I think he

answered before it got through, to be truthful; it was that quick. But there are

other people that you text and you text again and you don't get answers.

Listen,

if the answer is no, then the answer is no. But at least discuss it with you so

you can get the answer. That's all we're asking. For people not to get back to

you, I just don't think it's acceptable.

We're

sitting here talking about the cost of living and how it affects everybody and

the price of fuel, the price of groceries. We sit here and look at the

government and they spent $5 million with Rothschild to make an evaluation of –

we can't get somebody in Newfoundland to do that? It's incredible.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Or Canada.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

It's incredible. If somebody

got a contract in Newfoundland for a million dollars they'd be delighted I'm

sure. I don't know what the cost is. I have no idea but to spend $5 million and

give it to a US company – out to lunch. I can't believe it. We're talking about

the common people here in Newfoundland and that's where we get lost.

Your

heads are up in the clouds. I don't know what part of the country you're working

in. You don't look at people. You don't talk to people. You must not go anywhere

that people are there, that you don't realize that you're giving the people in

the States $5 million to do an assessment of our assets. It makes no sense to

me. Maybe you can explain it when I sit down. It makes no sense to me. Somebody

in Newfoundland should be able to do that job – Newfoundland and Labrador, I

won't say Newfoundland alone, Newfoundland and Labrador. It just doesn't make

sense.

You're

talking about the cost of living; we just put somebody in Central Newfoundland

to represent the Premier. It is going to cost, probably, a quarter of a million

dollars, and we can't take off a couple of cents worth of gas for the common

people to be able to drive around. What part don't we get? I just don't

understand it.

The

common people are who we are here to serve. They all voted you in and we have to

take care of them. We sit here and making announcement. Yesterday, just before

we go in the House, you make a great announcement. There's no question, a good

announcement, just before you go in the House so you take some heat of

yourselves.

People

look right through it. They look right through it and you still want to play the

political game. It would just get on your nerves after a period of time. It just

gets so down in the hole, it's unbelievable; people look right through it.

You talk

about electricity, and I like the electric car, I worked in the industry selling

cars. We sold two a year when I was at it, two, and they were $40,000 or

$45,000.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That was a good salesman.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Yeah, good salesman, yeah, no

doubt.

Sometimes I look at it and say what am I doing in here, I should be in trying –

well, you can't sell vehicles now, they're not there to get. There are some

there but there are not a lot. To be able to put in these promotions for

electric cars, the reality is, first of all, you can't afford them. Second of

all, you can't get them. You can put all the rebates out there you like.

Put the

rebate on home heating fuel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Put the rebate on home

heating fuel, because you can't get those cars. Yes, you can, you can get 12 or

13 or 14, there are companies that can get them, but they're not making them

yet. But you have to have them out there, and I agree it's a good incentive, but

get the home heating rebate out. The taxes on home insurance, I'm not sure if

that's still there or not, get that off.

That's

the stuff that people are looking for. I had somebody, when I knocked on the

door last year, they gave me a sheet of paper with their costs, with the money

that they made. When they finished, at the end of the month, they had $34. Now

what do they have this year with the cost of living? They didn't get any

increase. Maybe it's the $400 that they're going to get, if they qualify for

that.

It just

doesn't make sense, how we don't see the people that we need to represent, that

need to get the breaks in this society to be able to survive. That's the ones

that we have to take care of, not giving $5 million to the US or giving – I

don't know what it's going to cost to put an office in Central Newfoundland for

the Premier's –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL:

There's a number out there,

but why don't we take that quarter of a million dollars and put it towards the

people that really need it. Did they need to have that representation? They're

paying that gentleman and that gentleman there and they're paying all of you to

represent the constituents. You don't need somebody else out there to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

It's not acceptable.

I sit

here and I respect everybody on that side, but sometimes you have to get down to

the people that need to get these breaks in life. When I go to an arena, go to a

show, or go wherever, these people are talking to you and they say: Where are

they with all this stuff that they're doing which doesn't make sense?

I'm in

the District of Ferryland. Last year they took an ambulance out of Trepassey and

brought it down to Cape Broyle. What was the cost? We have no idea yet. Who did

it benefit? Did it benefit the ambulance owner or did it benefit the people? The

people in Trepassey need a second ambulance. When one goes, they are two hours

away. Most times – you don't see it in the news – they are getting in their car

and they are driving out themselves, two hours to get here. Now it is going to

cost them more to get here again. Then they come out here when they are two

hours away and you got to eat out here.

It just

doesn't make sense some of these moves. I'm wondering who is making the moves.

Is it the minister making it; is the ambulance owner making all these rules?

Because I haven't got any answers yet. Then you go up there and people are

putting on Facebook the ambulances are not cleared off. It snowed last week and

they're not cleared off. Twenty minutes to get them cleared off. Should they be

inside? Should they be stored inside, an ambulance that leaves and goes to a

call?

That is

the kind of stuff that – they have contracts. I don't know the contracts. I came

here three years ago and to sit down and to see the contract and try to find it

and it's not there – it could be there, but there is information and each one

could be different. But it is not acceptable to have this stuff happening and to

make a call.

You look

at saving money. This is what this debate is about; it is about saving money. I

look at the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, saving money. I

would say they spend more on signs and pylons to get around washed-out roads

than anything in the district; it is incredible.

Maintenance: If anybody has a vehicle, and I have worked in the industry, if you

do maintenance on your vehicle, then that's where it's to. That saves you money

in the long run. But if you don't do any maintenance, then you're going to have

washouts and you're going to have plugged up ditches and you're going to have

everything washed out. So what part of that don't we get as a district – every

district got it, not only mine.

The

South Coast and the West Coast certainly got their share this year, there is no

question. But some of that is maintenance. Trepassey area, Portugal Cove South,

they're 30 years since they had pavement – 35 years up in St. Shott's in that

area and it is called the Irish Loop. The other side is paved; that is Liberal.

That is paved, but not on this side. And I sit over here and I'm going to get

less because I'm going to speak out against it? Well, I'm certainly not getting

run over with pavement right now, so why shouldn't I speak about it?

They got

to get out and get the maintenance done. There is ditching up there to be done.

There is tree cutting to be done. There is brush cutting to be done. You see it

all over the Island. That is preventative maintenance and that is cost saving

because, if not, it is going to cost you more in the long run. It's the same as

a vehicle. If you spend money upfront, it should save you money later on.

I live

in the Town of Bay Bulls and they had some flooding this year. But I've got to

say they did their ditching, because I saw it. It was next to my house. I saw it

through the community as you drive through it every day. They did their ditching

and they had less flooding this year. Now, maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe they

didn't have as much water there, but I tell you they had less flooding.

Now, we

had a lot of rain, there's no question. But they did their preventative

maintenance, and that's some of the stuff that we've got to get in the

departments. We get calls from people about washouts. Now we've got to send an

email. We're not allowed to talk to the depots. It just doesn't make sense.

These are the people that we have a good rapport with. I have a good rapport

with my Department of Transportation – I'm going to say I do, but my CA does for

sure. We deal with it every day. We got to have that communication to be able to

get things done. I'm not here to jump on anybody but we need – I've gone

through, I'm going to say, three ministers now in the Department of

Transportation, so I can't leave it on the last person that just got it because

it is a stressful job. But –

AN HON. MEMBER:

I was there, too.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

You were there too, yes.

This is

preventative maintenance. I know you can't take all of the money and put it

everywhere you want, but that is preventative maintenance and every single

district got this issue. And it's preventative maintenance is what we've got to

get to and that's what's going to save you money. Not just sit here and throw

money at everything that's going to suit you and give us press conferences just

before we get in the House.

Do the

preventative stuff that's going to save us some money. Not just throw it

wherever you want. We're really out of touch with that stuff and I think that

we've got to get to it and be able to get this preventative maintenance done and

it'll save you money – bottom line. If you don't do anything with it for four or

five years, then it's going to cost you money in the fifth year.

You've

got to start spreading out some of this money and give it to all districts so we

can have some paving. We sit here and do petitions and try to get everything we

can, but we have to get down to doing this stuff and get back to the common

people and to the people that you represent.

Thank

you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. The Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Chair,

for this opportunity this morning to speak to Interim Supply.

I guess

from the Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation perspective, primarily, but,

first of all, I'd be remiss in my role if I didn't congratulate Liam Hickey on

his silver medal performance; Team Gushue, who, even with a one man down, was

able to win the Brier and are now headed to Vegas for the world championships;

and, again, Team Young.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER:

Not only is the last name of

skip, Young, but the team was young. We saw a 15-year-old from the Cape St.

Francis District actually throw a rock at the Brier. I think it bodes very well

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER: –

for curling in Newfoundland

and Labrador when you see a team that are that young actually get to that

national stage. I think a lot of that can be attributed to the success of Team

Gushue.

Chair,

the tourism, culture and arts industry has been one, I will argue, hardest hit

by COVID-19. Since March of 2020, as a government and as a province, we've been

there to help the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and the artists

that help support that industry as well. We've done it three times through the

Tourism and Hospitality Support Program and the Artist Support Program.

I can

assure that industry that as we move into budget 2022 we'll, again, be looking

at ways to assist that industry as we recover. Because I've said – I actually

stole this line from my federal counterpart. Minister Boissonnault uses the line

all the time: Canada will not have a full economic recovery until the tourism

and hospitality industry recovers. That's no different in this province.

Prepandemic, it was a $1.12-billion industry, and you can add to that our arts

and culture industries as well supplying 20,000-plus people with employment and

280 businesses.

That

leads me, I guess, to one of the initiatives that we've taken on this year in

the department, and that's Come Home Year 2022. That program is designed not

only to celebrate Newfoundland and Labrador and bring our friends and family and

relatives back and encourage others to visit the province, but this, in a lot of

ways, is a stimulus program for the industry, the hospitality industry, and a

way to make sure that our artists are getting out and working this summer.

We had

the Cultural Economic Development Program which closed maybe a little over a

week or so ago. We had received 500 applications from 171 different towns and

different organizations throughout the province. The Premier and I were in

Corner Brook on Friday and announced the first round of that funding for the

West Coast back to parts of Central. We'll be announcing others in the coming

days.

I look

around this House and I can assure every hon. Member here that there is

something exciting going to happen in your area, in your towns, this summer when

it comes to Come Home Year. This is peppered all across the province, some great

ideas. We would've loved to have been able to fund every single idea.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to do so. Again, I can tell you there's been a

lot of hard work by the staff combing through some 500 applications and

evaluating those applications.

We saw a

program in Municipal and Provincial Affairs that was oversubscribed and the

department went back and actually found a way to fund, I think, every

application that came in. I know my colleague in the Department of Environment

and Climate Change had a program through the MMSB, again, I think it was

oversubscribed, but I think they have been able to go back and find a way to get

there. The enthusiasm around Come Home Year is great.

The

Member for Topsail - Paradise talked about the cost of living in his remarks a

few minutes ago. I don't think there's anybody in this House or anybody who

doesn't recognize the fact that we are going through, I would say, inflation.

I've never seen it in my lifetime, I think, 5 per cent last year and looks at

being 4 or 5 per cent again this year.

The

programs announced by this government yesterday will help 200,000 people in this

province, but, again, as my colleague for – I'm having trouble with names this

morning, Mr. Chair – St. George's - Humber referenced, we know that we will have

to continue when it comes to the cost of living, and it's certainly not an easy

task but one that we will have to continue to look at as we move forward.

Again, I

hear it regularly from the industry, the hospitality industry, every time I chat

with them on anything, they will bring in the fact of the cost of living,

because not only has there been a cost of living increase to individuals, but if

you look at businesses, the restaurant industry, for example, are going through

a very tough time when it comes to cost of living. Again, we will be working

towards programs in budget 2022-2023 to do our best to alleviate some of those

pressures, if at all possible.

I'd be

remiss if I didn't take a moment to talk about the impacts this past year on the

film and television industry. We had our best year ever last year on film and

television in this province. We had the Disney shoot, we had

Son Of A Critch and

Hudson & Rex . We have great success happening right now with

Rock Solid Builds . I did an interview yesterday with – I think it was a

media outlet from Nova Scotia, who wanted to talk about the impacts of the film

and television industry and in particular

Rock Solid Builds on tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I had

the opportunity, last year, to meet with home and garden television and the

approach that they have taken to that show and to the Spracklin family and the

cast and the crew of that show. What they have done to highlight Newfoundland

and Labrador with that show, it is not really measurable. It's an indirect

positive for the tourism industry every time you look at it. I think last weeks

show started in Cape Spear and talked about that being the most easterly point

in North America. Even the intro every single week, when you see that drone

footage of Brigus, it is an ad that we can't buy, Mr. Chair, and it is very

valuable to us.

I'll

conclude my remarks and just quickly talk about the planning that is under way

for the 2025 Canada Summer Games here in St. John's. That will also be a great

event for this province, for this city. It will give us some investment in

infrastructure around the city and it will bring a lot of people here for what

would, hopefully, be another successful year.

Mr.

Chair, I'll take my seat right now and look forward to other opportunities to

talk about the department that I am so pleased to be in throughout the budget

debate in the coming weeks.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Chair.

First of

all, I would like to say how proud I am to stand here and represent the

wonderful people of the District of Harbour Main. It is always an honour to

speak on their behalf in the House of Assembly.

I would

like to, first of all, start off by mentioning what the Government House Leader

has stated, there are things that we have to look forward to; there are positive

signs. His reference to Rock Solid Builds ,

which I am happy and proud to say originates from the District of Harbour Main

in Brigus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

We are very, very proud

of the work that they do and of the attention they're bringing, not only to

Brigus and the surrounding areas in the District of Harbour Main but to the

whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also, we

need, at this time, some positives to look forward to. Of course, Come Home

Year, hopefully, that will provide that bright light that we desperately need

right now because, Chair, these are very troubled times. We only have to look at

the geopolitical reality that we see in the world today. Our hearts and prayers

are with the people of Ukraine and we only pray that the Russian war will come

to an end soon and there will be peace in the world again.

Mr.

Chair, I can say with respect to the problems that we face here in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, I don't know how people are going to handle this;

how they're going to survive; how they're going to do it. I received many

responses, yesterday, about the cost of living, a plan that was announced by

government.

I'll

read one from a constituent, a concerned constituent who is a working

constituent in the District of Harbour Main. She said: Oh my God, please, on

behalf of all your constituents that travel every day to go to work and who are

drowning in gasoline prices, please stand up for us against government's

announcement today and get further help.

Chair,

this cost of living announcement – I heard one of the Members from government

say earlier that it is a starting point, but it's woefully inadequate. We need a

new cost of living plan. Yesterday's financial help package really doesn't cut

it. It just does not cut it. As other Members on our side have stated, we've

been hearing from constituents ever since.

There's

a lack of help for the working Newfoundlander and Labradorian and I fail to see

why that is the case. There's nothing in that plan – that 5-point plan – to

really help the working poor. They are the people in our province who are

struggling. They're struggling to afford gas to drive to work and this is not an

exaggeration.

I go

into a store and I say: Okay, guys, what's the issues? The issues are the war in

the Ukraine. We're so concerned about that, but we're also concerned about how

we are going to survive as well because we have real problems here and the

reality is the rising cost of food. Families are having a hard time feeding

their children and women, as has been stated, and I stated it this week and

earlier, women are significantly impacted as a result of COVID. It's a fact that

they were disproportionately impacted by COVID. So women are also having

difficulty in providing food for their children.

We ask:

What are government's priorities here? What are their priorities? I mean, this

is one constituent that reached out desperately yesterday and said what is

happening here. Is it that our government doesn't care? Is that what it is? Or

is it apathy? Is it elitism that they can't relate to the average Newfoundlander

and Labradorian?

When we

look at that five-point plan, there's nothing really to help the working poor.

We see that there's assistance there. There's a 10 per cent rise to Income

Support and the Seniors' Benefit programs, but we've seen, I believe, a 25 per

cent rise in gas prices. That's not going to even cut it. That's not going to

cover that rise in gas prices.

We see

three of the points are related to poverty reduction, but also there are two of

the points in this financial plan yesterday that focus on climate change and the

transition. Those measures, yes, they are necessary measures that we have to

look forward with respect to green energy and the future, but right now those

measures are not helping people in our province who are struggling with the

price of gas, who cannot afford to go about and buy a new electric or hybrid

vehicle. They don't have the means to do that.

Chair,

is this government really, the choices they're making – we have to question

these choices. They're not the choices that the people who elected them want

them to choose. This package yesterday, it does provide limited relief, but, as

we've stated in the Official Opposition, a home heating rebate would go so much

further to help the people of our province today.

We are

given suggestions: Wait for the budget; maybe something is going to come out

then. Well, people can't wait. I mean, people need help now. Chair, it's very

concerning. We're all hearing from our constituents and we're trying to

encourage government to go back and get a new funding package. Look at it. Our

people are telling us that they need further assistance here. Are you listening?

Are you listening to the people that elected you? You're here to govern and

you're here to listen. We're telling you what we're hearing. We're not

exaggerating; these are the realities.

One

other point that I want to make is with respect to the Bay du Nord Project. I

was encouraged when I heard the Minister of Energy reference that it is

important to the minister, and the Bay du Nord Project is something that is

definitely of concern and that they will be supporting.

Chair,

forgive me if I'm skeptical, forgive me if I doubt that, but I hope that is

meant with sincerity and genuineness, because Bay du Nord is a critical project

for the future of our province. It will create jobs for our people, it will

increase supply opportunities for our businesses and it will positively impact

the economy. It has other benefits like the potential to produce the lowest

carbon barrels of oil in Canada. We have to recognize, though, this is very

important. It's critical for us to appreciate the scale and importance of this

project. It's bigger than Hibernia; it's the largest offshore oil and gas

project that this province has ever seen and, if approved, it will be the

largest subsea project of its kind in the world.

So this

can help the province for years to come. We will benefit. It will create jobs.

It will create further oil revenue. We are at a watershed. A choice has to be

made. Our government has to stand up and fight, if necessary, to protect that

project. Do we continue to import high-carbon oil and fund oppressive regimes,

Chair? Do we continue to jeopardize the economic and energy security of our

country, or do we chose a different path and support Bay du Nord? The people of

the District of Harbour Main, many of whom will benefit as well, ask that we do

that.

Thank

you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Thank you, Chair.

It's

certainly my privilege to be here in the House today to debate the bill to grant

Interim Supply to the government. I want to put this in a larger context and

relate it to events in Ukraine and how it ties back to our democracy here in

this province. What does this bill have to do with my ability and my privilege

to speak in our House of Parliament and how it relates to events in the Ukraine?

Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills spoke, both

eloquently and forcefully, about, as he said, the illegal, immoral and horrific

war visited upon Ukraine by the Russian neighbour, the aggressor. For me what's

at stake in this invasion and unwarranted war is the exercise of democracy for

President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Parliament and all Ukrainians, for them to be

able to continue to have the ability to debate their future course for their

country. Do they want to join the European Union? Do they want to join NATO? Do

they want to explore other economic and political affiliations? This should be

their right and theirs alone.

Civil

wars have been fought over the centuries to protect the right of

self-determination and the role of Parliaments to hold governments accountable

for their actions, including the raising of taxes and approval of expenditures

on public services, as we are doing here today. But we see in Russia that these

two basic principles of democratic government have been swept aside, and that

the dictator Putin wants the same for the Ukraine.

Now,

this brings me back to our debate on what may be considered a mundane piece of

legislation: Interim Supply. What I want my colleagues in this House to keep in

mind, as well as the public and the electorate at large, is that we have this

hard-won right to meet as a Parliament and to debate based on our beliefs and

our consciences. In light of current events in Europe, let's not take this right

for granted.

Now to

the bill itself. It provides the government with the funds to continue to

deliver essential services needed and wanted by the public. For instance, when

it comes to health, to keep our hospitals running. In terms of our Department of

Education, to keep our schools, our college and our university running. For my

Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development, to keep income support

payments being made to over 20,000 households without interruption on April 1;

for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, to support our tourism and art

sectors to be ready to receive our guests and families for Come Home Year 2022.

When we

look at the Department of Justice and Public Safety, it's obviously to keep our

police forces funded. When it comes to Transportation and Infrastructure, to

keep our roads clear from snow, for the month of April and to make sure they

maintain on a go-forward basis.

To keep

this Legislature going, all important; to keep our MHAs paid, believe it or not;

Environment and Climate Change, to keep flood mapping going so that we're ready

for future floods; for Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, to support our

various sectors under the mandate of the minister; for Industry, Energy and

Technology, again, to keep their programs and service running uninterrupted

after April 1; for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, obviously, it's to support

the municipalities with their operating grants and infrastructure funding; for

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, which I'm responsible, is

again to keep the operations running, to keep the rent supplements flowing and

to make sure our units are available for rent, and to support our tenants.

Chair,

the bill assures that our Westminster form of democracy continues to be

exercised and remains relevant dating back to over 1,007 years ago to when King

John in 1215 signed the Magna Carta .

It is that principle that's at stake in the Ukraine and it's a principle that we

want to ensure that stays relevant in this House of Assembly.

Chair,

there was a lot of discussion by Members opposite on what was announced

yesterday in terms of responding to the rising cost of living in this province.

I'm certainly proud to be a Member of this government that is taking that issue

quite seriously; have worked hard to make sure that we can come up with

responses that meet the immediate needs of those who are most vulnerable,

because it is that part of our population that we owe a responsibility to ensure

that they have the finances and incomes to continue to run their households. The

fact that we're spending approximately $20 million very quickly to get out the

door, I think, is a testament of our commitment to that particular cause.

Can more

be done? I think that's something we will obviously want and are considering,

and there are other things that we need to look at. We need to make sure we

improve our education system so that those who are coming through the school

system are ready and equipped for our workforce. We still have a very high

unemployment rate. Not that there are jobs lacking in this economy, but we find

very often that people do not have the skills to meet the demand of our

workforce.

There

are other things that we are looking at as a department. We're looking at how we

improve our income support program, how we look at poverty reduction in the

context of a social and well-being plan, so, again, to support all individuals,

all families in this province to meet their needs.

This is

not done overnight, it's going to take us weeks and months to put some of these

further strategies in place, but I'm optimistic at the end we will have the

right policy instruments and the right programs in place to address many of the

things that the Opposition, Third Party and others have been commenting on.

The

challenge, I think, before many families today literally is dealing with the

immediate cost of living. We need to be responsive to their needs. As a

department, we're monitoring and working with the community agencies so that any

individual, any individual family that is in immediate need, we can support and

reach out to them. I'm committed to making sure we address those needs.

We have

a housing program that is probably one of the better programs in this country.

We have new rent supplements that are helping individual families find

accommodations and that is working quite well. We want to expand on that in the

future. We're looking at making sure that seniors have the appropriate housing

that they need for the short, medium and longer term. Whether it's in Lab West,

St. John's Centre, whether it's in my own district, whether it's anywhere else

in the province, we are committed to addressing those housing needs.

Chair, I

will sum up by saying that when we look at events across the world that are

happening right now and the influence that they're having on this province, most

of which had not been predicted two or three weeks ago, it's a price,

unfortunately, we all are going to have to pay while the fears in Europe are

sorted out. What the government is committed to doing is making sure in the very

short term that we address the immediate needs of those who are most vulnerable.

I think

we are on the right track in doing that. Obviously, we have a budget coming in a

couple of weeks, and the Minister of Finance will be providing more direction

and investments in other programs and services to support our economy through

which are some very unprecedented times, rocky times, yet support the future of

this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When

shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the Committee sit again?

S. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER:

In accordance with paragraph

9 (1) (

b) of the Standing Orders , this

House do stand recessed until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Good

afternoon, before we start today's proceedings, I'd like to first of all begin

by welcoming our two new Pages. They were here yesterday helping out, but today

they're sitting in the Page role.

To my

left, we have Cody Dalton from St. John's. He's studying political science at

Memorial University. To my right, is Gala Palavicini Jauregui from Mexico who is

studying political science and Russian language and literature at Memorial

University.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

In the public gallery, I

would like to welcome Niki Greeley, Lodge Bay's Fire Chief and Member of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Indigenous Tourism Association.

Also

joining us in the public gallery are Gina Parsons, Assistant Head of School at

Lakecrest Independent School and students, Amelia Parsons and Alexia Bishop.

They are joining us today for a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Baie Verte - Green Bay, Stephenville -

Port au Port, Labrador West, Harbour Main and St. John's Centre.

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR:

Speaker, I rise to recognize the NLOWE 2021

Entrepreneur of the Year Award for Economic Impact, Ms. Joy Barker, a

business owner from Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. WARR:

NLOWE is the Newfoundland and

Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs honouring outstanding women in

business. The Economic Impact Award recognizes an entrepreneur whose business

has significantly impacted the local economy, employing locals and stimulating

growth to sustainable community development.

Joy

Barker has economically impacted both her hometown of Baie Verte and the nearby

Town of Springdale. Joy is president of JSR Holdings, owner of a gas bar and

convenience store, Copper Stop, at Baie Verte, as well a decommissioned

provincial park, now Blue Canoe, a family RV park near Springdale. Joy saw an

opportunity, took a chance and expanded the businesses.

Joy

believes it's important as a business owner to support local resources. If we

don't use it, we lose it. Joy attributes hard work and devotion to her success.

She's thankful to fiancé Brad and her family – Roy, Idella, Tamara and Peggy –

for their support and encouragement.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in applauding Joy Barker and wishing her continued

success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au-Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

Rosie

Ryan, a Kippens resident and former physical education teacher, has been

influencing youth throughout the Bay St. George area for over 40 years. Rosie's

involvement in sports include softball, running, volleyball, basketball, indoor

soccer, ball hockey and badminton.

Retired,

she continues to use her skills and expertise to promote physical fitness among

youth and is involved in sport and recreation as a coach and community

volunteer. In recognition for her contributions to student participation in

recreational sport and physical activity programs, Rosie was awarded the School

Sports Newfoundland and Labrador's Participation Nation Ambassador Award.

Rosie

has also helped start numerous programs across the province, including the Bay

St. George Special Olympics program. In 2018, Team Newfoundland and Labrador

named Rosie a Special Olympics coach and she was named coach of the year by

Special Olympics Canada. In 2019, she was chosen as an associate coach for the

Canadian team competing at the World Special Olympics Summer Games in Abu Dhabi,

marking the first time a Special Olympics coach from Newfoundland and Labrador

had been selected as part of a national team.

I ask

all hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating Rosie Ryan for her

continued work and commitment to the youth of our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Charlie

Russell was born and raised in Port Hope Simpson and moved to Labrador West to

raise his family. Charlie grew up watching his father use his dog sled team for

various things like carrying wood and bringing local residents to the hospital.

Charlie wanted to keep his heritage alive and saw that dream come true when he

started his own dog sled team in Labrador West 28 years ago.

Over the

years, Charlie participated in over 30 races, rode as a hobby and shared this

Labrador heritage with visitors from around the world by bringing them on dog

sled rides. He enjoyed this very unique way of connecting with his heritage by

riding through the trails with his team and seeing Labrador's vast beauty.

After 28

years, Charlie is retiring from mushing. Owning a dog sled team is hard work,

and it becomes a part of our everyday routine. I know it wasn't an easy decision

for him, but we are very proud he and his family worked to preserve and share

our culture.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking Charlie Russell and his family for their

pride and this dedication to keeping this Labrador tradition well alive.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Speaker, it's an honour

to stand in the House of Assembly today, only days after International Women's

Day 2022, to recognize an amazing woman who grew up and lived for many years in

the Harbour Main District. And, who due to her sheer determination, inner

strength and resilience, overcame one of the worst adversities imaginable: child

abuse.

Ms. Bev

Moore Davis suffered much as a young child. Now, as a young woman, she has

written about her early childhood experiences in her inaugural book,

White Picket Monsters . Her story is an

example of survival and empowerment.

She has

quickly become a publicly acclaimed writer and just recently received the

prestigious honour from Atlantic Books

Today as the 2021 number one bestselling author in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Her objective in writing

this book was primarily to give other survivors of child abuse hope and to also

provide awareness and education on this important issue. She is truly a role

model for all women and young girls to follow.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Moore Davis, to thank her for her

courage in sharing her story and to wish her continued success in her advocacy

work in this area.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Lakecrest Independent School is St. John's only nationally and internationally

accredited independent school, serving 150 students from kindergarten to Grade

9. Located in downtown St. John's, Lakecrest has been serving local and

international families for over 25 years.

As an

International Baccalaureate World School, Lakecrest focuses on creating global

citizens and preparing students for the future by developing the skills and

characteristics needed to be successful.

Lakecrest is a small, community-focused school emphasizing the development of

the whole student through academics, physical education, music and art. The

elementary, junior and chamber choirs are renowned throughout the city, as is

the theatre arts program.

Lakecrest celebrated its 15th year participating in the Terry Fox Run and was

joined by Mayor Danny Breen. The robotics team participates in numerous

competitions. The sports teams and hockey skills program provide further

opportunities for students.

Lakecrest's educational philosophy provides many other opportunities to extend

learning outside the classroom, through field trips to places like the Salmonier

Nature Park and the Sunshine Rotary Park, to the use of the new outdoor

classroom to enhance the learning environment available to students.

Lakecrest welcomes families of all backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities and

celebrates diversity and inclusivity.

I ask

Members to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of Lakecrest Independent

School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Speaker, I ask all hon.

Members to join me in congratulating the recipients of the 2022 Research

Inspired Student Enrichment – or RISE – Awards.

I had

the privilege of personally sharing the exciting news with one of the

recipients, Samuel Ruttgaizer of Marystown Central High School. He, along with

14 other Level II high school students, are being recognized for their interest

in research and innovation, as well as their academic excellent in science,

technology, engineering and mathematics.

The

provincial government is pleased to deliver the awards program, including

support for tuition, accommodations and travel for recipients to attend summer

research-related enrichment programs at either the Boston Leadership Institute

or the Research Science Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Speaker,

the application process for the RISE Awards was very competitive. I was happy to

learn of the significant interest this year, with all applicants demonstrating

high academic achievements and strong interest in research and development

activities. Our government is committed to the early development of talent that

is required to advance research and development, encourage innovation and foster

economic growth for our province.

Speaker,

the successful recipients are from many regions throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. I speak on behalf of all hon. Members to say we are very proud of

these exceptional students and we wish them the best as they represent our

province abroad in the months ahead.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the

Official Opposition, I'd like to extend congratulations to the recipients of the

2022 Research Inspired Student Enrichment Awards: Julia Caines, Evan Dicks,

Farah Farah, Grace Goudie, Amber Hann, Sanuda Jayasinghe, Eunho Lee, Shathvihan

Logendraraj, Ash Peddle, Rachel Reid, Samuel Ruttgaizer, Colin Spencer, Daniel

Stokes, Samuel Wheeler and a special recognition to Daniel Collins who, I must

note, is a student of Govertown Academy in the great District of Terra Nova.

I'd also

like to congratulate the mentors, teachers, parents and all those who have

supported these students in their academic research journeys. I do hope these

students take advantage of the great opportunity and attend the Boston

Leadership Institute or the Research Science Institute enrichment programs. I

look forward to the great things they will achieve in the future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

These

students are a prime example or how innovative we need to be to secure our

province's future. We need to incubate their interests and make space for them,

give them a place to apply their skills and talents in the future for our

economy, so we can build a better future together for this province

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

pleased to join members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association

to proclaim March 14 to18 as Education Week.

This

year's theme, “A Place to Grow,” encourages a happy, stimulating and nurturing

environment that allows students to develop socially and academically, while

envisioning all they can be.

More

than ever before we recognize the importance of education and the role it plays

in our communities. Maintaining instruction has been central to our approach to

the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why we've invested nearly $60 million in the

school system since 2020 to keep schools as safe as possible.

recognize the value of in-person learning and of belonging to a school community

for the emotional well-being of students, as well as for their future successes

in everything they do. While memories of this time of adversity will fade, the

lessons we've learned, both inside and outside the classroom, will remain.

Speaker,

I want to sincerely thank the many dedicated teachers, administrators, support

staff and volunteers who go above and beyond to inspire our students to grow

each and every day. Teaching doesn't stop at the classroom.

encourage students to take

part in the many activities happening this week, and

I ask all Members of the House to join me in celebrating Education Week 2022.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I would

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

all my colleagues on this side of the House join me in celebrating Education

Week. Like the minister, I acknowledge the significant role of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Teachers' Association, and I would also add the Federation of

School Councils, who are also significant partners in education.

Speaker,

we recognize and appreciate the role of teachers, administrators, support staff,

volunteers and parents who make such a contribution to our children's

educational experience. As the minister pointed out, COVID-19 has provided

exceptional challenges in our classrooms that are faced with substitute teacher

shortages, overcrowded classrooms, poor air quality and lack of a formal online

option for learning.

Speaker,

as we emerge from COVID-19, my greatest hope during Education Week is that the

minister will urgently release a plan to overcome the learning deficits our

children have experienced over the past two years.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. As a former educator,

Education Week is one that is close to my heart and to my family. Our education

successes these past two years are due largely to our teachers, school staffs,

family and to the resiliency of our school communities.

I would

like to take this opportunity to renew our calls for continued investment in a

long-neglected system by decreasing class sizes and installing mechanized

ventilation so that our children have a safe and nurturing place to grow.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Are there are any further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, we're glad to see

the Premier was in Ottawa yesterday to press for our case for Bay du Nord with

the prime minister.

Can he

update the House on his bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday,

and when can we expect an approval?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

hon. Member across knows, my primary purpose yesterday was to be there to show

solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

I think it's incredibly

important that we stand with our federal colleagues and our NATO partners across

the world as we show that solidarity, not just in the fight for the Ukrainian

people but the fight for democracy. As generations before us have done, we need

to do that, too. That was my primary focus there yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

That

said, I did have an opportunity to have many discussions with many ministers

about Bay du Nord and I re-expressed, as I had publicly very many times, my

commitment and support for this project on the merits of the project, the

environmental merits, the economic merits. This is a solid project. It is what

the world needs now more than ever before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

attest to the fact that all Members on this side of the House stand