PDF Version

June 10, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 37

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. the Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, St. John's Centre,

Topsail - Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue and Torngat Mountains.

The hon.

the Member for Windsor Lake.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recognize today Ruwei Liang who opened their restaurant in the middle of a

pandemic. Now this family can't keep up with the business.

Ruwei

says his new business in Airport Heights has been getting hundreds of calls a

day for takeout orders. A small staff at KungFu restaurant keep food orders

filled at the new spot, the only restaurant in the neighborhood.

Ruwei

has been working toward opening a Chinese restaurant in St. John's since 2018,

and it finally came together right as the COVID-19 pandemic started spreading

around the world. I didn't expect that many people would support me during this

so difficult time. I'm so thankful for our wonderful community, he says.

Liang

said he has a small staff, a cook and two waitresses, along with him and his

wife, and he has two restaurants just outside of Hong Kong. He came to Canada in

2013, and after travelling through different provinces settled on Newfoundland

and Labrador to continue his culinary dream.

“I only

got three hours sleep,” he laughed. “I've been cooking for 20 years so far, so I

love cooking. I love people enjoying my food.”

Mr.

Speaker, this shows that small business can survive and can thrive in a

pandemic. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Ruwei Liang and his family for

ongoing success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, families provide love and support – a home; in difficult times they

also provide, to use the words of Bob Dylan, shelter from the storm. For

individuals and families outside the metro region who've received a diagnosis of

cancer, Daffodil Place is that shelter from the storm.

Despite

medical advances, a cancer diagnosis is still able to turn a person's life

upside down. To the Canadian Cancer Society, it's more than just a disease.

Daffodil

Place is operated by the Canadian Cancer Society NL division for cancer

patients, and caregivers, who must travel to St. John's to receive treatment.

For a low daily fee, patients and loved ones may stay at one of the facility's

24 rooms for the duration of their treatments. They also receive three hot meals

and snacks, and transportation to and from treatments.

And

there are emotional needs. Daffodil Place offers cancer support group meetings,

telephone information and support lines, as well as an online support community.

Practical supports in the form of turbans, wigs, temporary breast prostheses,

and information kits are also available.

As we

emerge from the world of COVID-19 and restrictions begin to ease, it's important

to continue to support the work of Daffodil Place – a place to call home when it

means the most.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

honoured today to wish Mrs. Ida Peet a happy 100th birthday, which she

celebrated on April 27, 2020.

Mrs.

Peet was born in Grand Falls, one of nine children. Her father worked at the

mill and her mother was a stay-at-home mom. After completing high school in

Grand Falls, she moved to St. John's and entered the Grace Hospital School of

Nursing, and received her RN in 1943 and worked as a delivery room supervisor

for many years. She married a townie and raised two children in St. John's.

Mrs.

Peet loved to garden and sew and purchased her last new sewing machine at the

age of 96. For 50 years she was actively involved in volunteer work at George

Street United Church. She is a very loving person and was always involved with

her family and extended family.

After

her husband passed away, she lived alone for 15 years and at the age of 90, when

she could no longer drive her car, she sold her house and moved to Meadow Creek

Retirement Centre, where she resides today.

Mrs.

Peet specifically asked me or wanted me to acknowledge her niece that she is so

fond of. That's former minister of Health, Susan Sullivan.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing Mrs. Ida Peet a happy 100th

birthday and wish her continued health and happiness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I humbly

recognize in the House today and speak of a very honourable woman.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 21 of this year, I had the opportunity of going to Arnold's Cove

to celebrate an amazing lady, Mrs. Jessie Wareham. Family and friend organized a

social distancing event, allowing with Mrs. Wareham to know how much we all

really care for her. Over this past year we have become friends. I adore her

commentary. She speaks of the challenges of resettlement, Confederation, the war

and especially electronics. These are some of the biggest life-changing events

she has experienced.

Mr.

Speaker, Mrs. Wareham is a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother and a

great-great grandmother – something many strive to accomplish. She has helped

nurture and shape many generations hailing from the Arnold's Cove area.

Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate this time to congratulate one of Arnold's Cove's icons,

Mrs. Jessie Wareham, on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join and help me acknowledge this

100-year-old Newfoundland woman, Mrs. Jessie Wareham.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

pay tribute to Toby Andersen, 33 years of dedicated service to the Labrador

Inuit, first as land claims negotiator, then deputy minister of Nunatsiavut

Affairs.

Thirty-three years of working to advance the rights and living standards of the

Labrador Inuit. A gruelling 33 years is how Toby described his years of advocacy

for his people. Every victory was hard fought.

He did

not want to disappoint his family and his people. That was his reason for

working hard every day. Expectations were high for land claims and the

repercussions far reaching.

Nunatsiavut Inuit are the first Indigenous group in Canada, to date, to have an

agreement with Canada to self-govern. An Inuit self-government that exists today

due to determination, long hours, long periods away from home and family; the

stakes high and the work gruelling. To accept his role of land claims

negotiator, he moved his family to Nain, a tremendous sacrifice to the large

Andersen clan. Toby credits his unwavering support to his wife, Maxine, for his

success.

Your

family is proud of you, Toby. Your voice is greatly missed throughout the

government you helped create. I am proud to pay tribute to you and your

dedication to the Labrador Inuit.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

mid-March, in light of the ongoing efforts to help contain COVID-19, Service NL

discontinued regular counter service at Motor Registration Division in Mount

Pearl and all other Government Service Centres throughout the province.

Although

counter service was suspended due to the public health emergency, Service NL

continued to provide the majority of services to clients through alternate

service channels, such as online, email, teleservices and drop boxes.

Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted that as of today, in-person services for written and

practical driver examinations are resuming with safety measures in place.

However, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the incredible uptake of our

online services available through MyGovNL.ca.

Since

the COVID-19 public health emergency, more than 98 per cent of vehicle renewals

have been conducted online. That is compared to 75 per cent during the same

period in 2019. There is also a significant uptake in the number of driver's

licence renewals conducted online, with over 92 per cent of drivers renewing via

the web – an increase from 47 per cent during the same time last year.

While

Service NL is beginning a phased-in approach to various in-person services

today, we ask residents to continue to use government's online service available

at MyGovNL.ca. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the staff of Service NL who have

continued to provide services through the pandemic. I would also like to thank

clients for their patience during this time and, as services resume, encourage

continued safety practices.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, many of the services provided by Service NL are very important, and I

would like to add to my appreciation to the staff who continue to provide these

services to the public. The statistic quoted by the minister regarding increased

uptake in online services are interesting, but certainly not surprising, given

the circumstances we have found ourselves in in recent months.

I do

have concerns about how difficult this move online has been for those people

that don't have Internet or computer access or skills. And I certainly hope that

measures are in place to assist and accommodate these individuals.

Mr.

Speaker, it is positive to see the resumption of some in-person services today,

and we also encourage everyone to continue the recommended safe practices to

stay safe.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It does

signal a move forward in people's use of technology for everyday needs. It is

one of the good things resulting from physical distancing. But we mustn't forget

those who don't have resources to take advantage of online services.

For many

reasons, some will still need human contact. Government needs to continue a

level of counter service and phone service to make sure that nobody is forgotten

or left behind.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to be in this hon. House to advise that applications are now being

accepted for the new Tourism and Hospitality Support Program.

This $25

million program will provide financial assistance to eligible tourism and

hospitality operators impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr.

Speaker, conservations with industry and stakeholders made it clear that

businesses and operators are facing many critical issues, such as

cash-flow challenges, cancelled contracts and loss of down payments for events

due to travel restrictions.

The Tourism and Hospitality Support Program will allow

eligible tourism operators to apply for a one-time, non-repayable working

capital contribution. Those with less than $100,000 in gross sales will receive

a $5,000 contribution, while those with greater than $100,000 in gross sales,

will receive a $10,000 contribution.

Mr. Speaker, we know that a mix of supports is required

to tackle some of the industry challenges arising from the pandemic, which is

why we developed this short-term program to complement the existing emergency

COVID-19.

The tourism and hospitality industry provides over

20,000 jobs, and supports more than 2,700 businesses throughout our province.

Our government recognizes the tremendous value of the industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador and this new program commitment aims to provide some relief to many

operators.

I encourage eligible operators to visit the Department

of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation website to learn more about the

program and apply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of

his statement.

The tourism industry is a bright spot in the province.

Our hard-working and sincere operators welcome visitors into the province each

year, offering a one-of-a-kind experience. However, it is unfortunate that

tourism operators will not be able to offer the same experiences this year.

While the Tourism and Hospitality Support Program will

indeed help some eligible operators, there are many who are not eligible and are

left with no support for their businesses. Additionally, with no staycation

marketing campaign and no certainty about an Atlantic travel bubble, operators

are left wondering if they will even be able to open their doors this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that operators

need help. They need help marketing their services to provincial residents and

they need an answer on an Atlantic travel bubble soon, before individuals in

other provinces make their vacation plans and we are left out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

It's great that these businesses are getting some help

to restart. All around the province they have been built by the bare hands of

the people after the collapse of the ground fishery. We need to support these

mom-and-pop businesses. This is a renewable resource at the root of our

province. We need to nurture this industry because it's an industry that can

last forever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

question for the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to making full disclosure

of the province's books during this sitting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Member for his question.

Obviously, the finances of the province is a concern for everybody living in the

province. I say to the hon. Member, it is simply not possible at this particular

stage.

I know

the officials in Finance put a considerable amount of time in place readjusting

numbers to provide the fiscal update on the close of 2019-20. They have been

working diligently towards putting the best effort for a budget forward. They're

currently working on those numbers but they're simply not ready.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Is the minister telling us

that the officials of his department don't produce an estimate of the current

financial condition on a monthly basis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as we have seen the uncertainty in the economy – the changing finances

of several provinces, we've seen the prime minister – I say that it's impossible

to put an accurate forecast forward at this particular time.

Most

recently, we had our oil forecasts tell us that we anticipated oil being

somewhere between $30 and $40 for this fiscal year. That's quite a $10 spread.

We've seen oil now over $40. Hopefully it will stay there, but the reality is

things are still changing. We have no indication as to what the economy is going

to look like.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Department

of Finance surely does the best it can with the information it has available.

The problem is that the minister is unwilling to share it with us.

Does he

expect the PC Opposition to collaborate on economic recovery without showing the

public the books?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With

great respect, I will say that it's an unfortunate view of officials in the

Department of Finance by the Member opposite. It's impossible to do a month by

month accounting of the books in this province, most especially now. I mean a

budget takes several months to put together, Mr. Speaker. Officials in Finance

have been working on this. To try and produce this on a month by month basis, to

produce a budget on a month to month basis in a normal year would not be

possible. It's certainly not possible as things are still fluid.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I expect the Minister of

Finance, as the months go by, to be telling us that he won't be able to do a

proper fiscal forecast until the year is over.

What is

in the books that he wants to hide from the public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I think the

people of the province, as we've seen through COVID and working together,

appreciated the collaboration. I think the people of the province also believe

it's time to put petty politics aside. I'll ignore the comment by the hon.

Member opposite.

In the

spirit of collaboration, Mr. Speaker, when we produce the Estimates that is line

by line, there is nothing hidden. We produce annual reports from every

department. The Auditor General reviews everything. There are Public Accounts,

Mr. Speaker.

We will

do a budget. Officials in the department are working on that now and when they

do, the Estimates will be put forward which is line by line by line of every

department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

surveillance flight reported between 2,000 and 3,000 litres of pollutant on the

surface of the water near Postville on Monday. The Canadian Coast Guard is now

saying that by yesterday, that dissipated to about 980 litres. The weather was

cool and overcast, that's poor conditions for dissipation, Mr. Speaker.

Most of

that 2,000 litres that's no longer on the water probably ended up on nearby

beaches. I know spills are a federal responsibility, but I have to ask the

minister: What steps are being taken to clean up the spill that's impacting

Inuit-owned lands?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Service

NL officials have been working with Environment Canada and the Canadian Coast

Guard. This is a very unfortunate incident. I would agree with the hon. Member

that it is very concerning, and as time goes on the diesel in the water does

dissipate.

I know

there is a Coast Guard vessel on the way to Postville, it should be arriving

actually this afternoon, to start clean up of what is still there. Federal

officials have been looking at all land-based possibilities to either determine

or to eliminate them as possibilities for the leak.

Mr.

Speaker, at this stage we believe it is water based, not land based, but there

is a Service NL official who should be arriving in Postville very soon as well

to help with the research.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As most

people know, the North Coast is a pristine environment. Right next to Postville,

spawning river. There is much char, trout, smelt and water fowl that frequent

the area.

In most

places in Canada now that area is no longer possible, those resources, so we

need to make sure we're protecting the resources.

I ask

the minister: What is he doing to ensure the spill is properly investigated?

Who's responsible? Who caused the spill? What caused this spill? Why wasn't this

spill reported originally?

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the

spill originated from on land, it would be provincial responsibility. At this

particular point, all indications look like it's a water-based spill, which

would be federal responsibility.

Having

said that, the province is deeply concerned about what has happened and we will

continue working with federal officials.

I don't

know why it wasn't initially reported, but I thank the people of the area, the

community residents. I know government is working with individuals in the area;

residents, the mayor and so on. This is very concerning.

Anytime

we have a pristine environment that's affected, Mr. Speaker, it concerns us all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, given the recent

comments of the Minister of Finance just a few minutes ago, and yesterday's

comment that Interim Supply of $4.8 billion runs out at the end of September, I

wonder: Will the minister table debate and pass a budget before Interim Supply

expires?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is

certainly our intent. It's our hope that the budget will be prepared. Officials

in the department are working on that, and as soon as we're able to present the

budget we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yes.

I would

like to ask the minister: Is that a yes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

things remain relatively stable and we don't have any other unforeseen shocks,

then I would say it's a yes. With the uncertainty that we face right now – I

mean, if there's another shutdown in the oil industry or if we get a second wave

of the pandemic – it may complicate things; but if things remain relatively

stable, I can absolutely say it's a yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I thank the minister for his

answer. Certainly the people of this province deserve to know where we are and

where we're going.

A recent

study determined that 48 per cent of small businesses in this province need help

paying their rent. This government has done little to ensure that these small

businesses will not be evicted or buried under debt. The current announced

program is not working for most businesses.

I ask

the minister: Why doesn't he listen to the concerns of these businesses and make

changes to the program to allow the money to flow to the hands of the tenants?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

federal program. Those decisions are made at the federal level. We have brought

those concerns to the federal minister of Finance.

current, I can say to the hon. Member that we have approximately 300 tenants

that will benefit from the program in this province. There are many, many more.

We are looking at what other provinces have done in terms of preventing

evictions. We're reviewing that now with a view to what we're able to do in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I thank the minister again.

Over

half of our province's small businesses have laid off employees and 11 per cent

have deemed that they will not be able to hire the employees back.

I ask

the minister: Where is the employment plan to get Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians back to work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

just like to clarify some of the statements of the hon. Member across the way.

The provincial government has done significant work with the small businesses.

Is there more to be done? Absolutely there's more to be done. We have deferred

fees and permits; tax payments have been extended; deferral of loan payments;

$10 million in utility credits; a new $25-million tourism program we just talked

about earlier; procurement thresholds have been increased; $30-million

Residential Construction Rebate Program that has been announced; and there's

more to come.

It's all

a culmination of working together with your federal colleagues and having a tool

belt or a tool kit that allows businesses to avail of services or programs that

are going to best serve them. There are gaps in the system. We're working with

our federal colleagues to try to address those gaps to ensure that those

businesses that are there (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you for your answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, with all due

respect, a series of announcements is not a plan.

The oil

and gas is an economic engine of our province and it has now stalled. Without

federal support for the industry, over 24,000 jobs are at risk.

When can

we expect real federal support with exploration incentives for the offshore

industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

certainly want to acknowledge the support of Members opposite in pursuing our

federal government partner in our offshore, because I want to remind everyone in

this province that the federal government is a partner in our offshore and we

have indeed requested of our partner their investment to accelerate exploration

and to assist businesses with financial liquidity, as have other countries done.

I particularly point to Norway, which has most recently announced additional

supports for the industry.

We want

to be able to develop the 650 leads and prospects we have offshore Newfoundland

and Labrador. We have 52 billion barrels that we know under seismic. So, Mr.

Speaker, we're encouraging the federal government, we're asking the federal

government as a partner to assist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, 11 per cent of

small local businesses have indicated they will not be able to bring back

employees, as I just stated. An additional 24,000 more jobs potentially in the

offshore at risk.

Again,

what does the minister say to those families who are worried about employment

and job uncertainty?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

say to the families that are concerned about continued growth and development of

our oil industry to continue to ensure that they send encouragement and request

to the federal government, as they have been doing. And most people in the

province, Mr. Speaker, have stood up and said the federal government should be

involved in ensuring a vibrant future for our offshore oil industry – as have

other countries, such as Norway.

This is

very important for our industry, it is very important for employment, it is very

important for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we should all be

doing everything possible to encourage that investment that will yield not just

jobs and opportunities for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the

country as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, many people are suffering because they cannot get the health care they

need or they cannot be with a family member when they are in hospital. There are

hundreds of heartbreaking stories. The people of the province deserve to know

when health care will return to normal.

Can the

minister table in this House the regional health authority's plan to address the

backlog for specialist appointments, procedures and surgeries due to the

cancellation of non-urgent elective health services.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, a very important question.

The

regional health authorities, as of probably an hour ago, have released their

updated plans for workload under Level 3, as well as a completely revised

visiting policy for long-term care and for acute care and the various areas in

it.

With

regard to clinical work, blood work, for example, is going back now to chronic

disease management. They are not yet ready to ramp up to routine work yet. That

will come with Level 2. There are indications of significant improvement or

increase in bed occupancy as more of the procedures that were deferred are taken

up.

I could

go on at some length, Mr. Speaker, but I see my time is up.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, your department was able to establish guidelines to allow my family

pet to have her fur cut weeks ago, but people are still waiting to find out when

their appointments will be rescheduled.

Once

again, will the minister commit to tabling an intensive, detailed plan developed

by the regional health authorities to address the backlogs? A simple yes or not

– will that be tabled in this House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue around health care relates to PPE. There is a comprehensive plan to ramp

up back to normal and the next phase of that will be a plan to address the

backlog.

Indeed,

discussions around this have been ongoing for some time. There are challenges

with regard to this because of the uncertainty of PPE. It would be rash of me to

give a promise with dates and times that was predicated on things I cannot

control.

We are

burning through PPE at the rate that matches our deliveries and until we can

increase the volume of our supply, it is unlikely that we will be able to

significantly ramp up beyond around 75 per cent bed occupancy in acute care at

the moment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

guarantee you the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need some reassurance of

when they're going to get back to some normality around health care,

particularly what's been backlogged that does have a life-or-death impact on

families in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

On March 4, the minister

said, and I quote: We have used shared services to adopt a provincial approach

with PPEs and stockpile. And that we were as ready as any province in the

country and better prepared than some. Later, we learned that there was no

stockpile and we weren't ready.

When did

the minister learn that there was no stockpile?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

was a much reduced stockpile that had been run down progressively since 2009. We

are in as good a position as regards to PPEs as many jurisdictions and better

than some. The challenge is around procurement. We now have two local sources

for face shields. We have a local manufacturer who is the final stages of

getting Health Canada certification to produce level 2 gowns within the

province.

We need

3,000 a day and, currently, our deliveries are around 30,000 a week. We have not

yet had the ability to build up on those and until such time as we can guarantee

a supply for acute care and the acute services, it would be rash of me to make

any predictions about when a particular procedure can be done.

Any

patient whose condition has deteriorated can talk to their doctor and have their

priority changed by the clinician.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That

just tells me that we weren't ready, Mr. Speaker, and that, unfortunately, has

had a major impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the last

three months.

The

department's official pandemic plan of November 2007 outlined a requirement for

stockpile of PPEs. The minister recently said in the media that one of the

lessons learned of the pandemic is the need for a stockpile.

I ask

the minister does he now have a plan to establish a stockpile and can the

minister give the specifics of this plan. When will it be in play and how much

of a stockpile will be held?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have

a plan for a stockpile.

The

challenge was, in 2007, a pile of stuff was bought, stuck in a warehouse and

basically rotted on the shelf because it was never used. Our plan is to

incorporate the stockpile into a supply chain so that as material is used it is

replaced and we keep a buffer. How big that buffer is, is yet to be determined

because, quite frankly, nobody knows how big it should be, how big will the next

wave be, how tall and how long.

It is

there; we have already started that. We have that in process with our ICU

critical drugs for COVID, for example. We have $250,000 worth of supply in our

inventory in our supply chain ready for next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you had five years to replenish that stockpile that would have

guaranteed that Newfoundland and Labrador would have been far better equipped to

address the pandemic that we had, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister admit that the delay in reopening health care services is caused by the

lack of personal protective equipment right now in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

in a good situation as regards to PPE when compared with a lot of other

jurisdictions. Are we where we would like to be? No. The reason for that is

because the source of 80 per cent of the supply chain for PPE is in the very

place that COVID-19 began and came back as a second wave, and is still, even

now, the principal source of the bulk of PPE in the world.

Until we

can change that model – and we are working with the federal government to do

that, to have a made-in-Canada, homegrown solution where we grow our own PPE –

until that happens, we are vulnerable and we will always be. We are working to

remedy that, Mr. Speaker, and we have local businesses doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, we have been

averaging about 150 tests a day for COVID. We're conducting the lowest number of

tests per day per capita in Canada, but apparently, according to the minister,

we have the ability to do anywhere from three to eight times that amount

depending on the flavour of the day.

Does the

minister have a policy against testing for COVID-19 in the community?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

testing is driven by symptoms. That test is a diagnostic test. It is not a

screening test. We follow the broadest testing criteria of jurisdictions in

Canada. We are way better than some and worse than none as far as Canada is

concerned.

The

facts of the case are there is no screening test for COVID-19, except 14 days of

symptom-free isolation. Until the science and the research community can come up

with a different tool, we are exactly where we need to be with testing, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Is the reason for the low testing rate because of insufficient supply

of PPE?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

No.

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a quick question.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

The absence of more

widespread testing in the community means we have no direct knowledge of the

presence of the virus in the community.

Has this

been holding up decisions about moving forward through to the next Alert Level?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

decisions on moving to the next level are made by public health experts,

clinicians. They are their recommendations and they make them on best evidence

and best practice. There is no one factor. Testing, PPE, symptoms, the

epidemiology of the disease in the province, the epidemiology of the disease in

other provinces and around the globe, all of these are factors which are taken

into consideration in determining what the next safe step is.

There is

no playbook for this. There is no playbook for this virus. It's only been here

six months, and everybody is still learning, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

federal government is about to cut crash rescue and fire services from Wabush

Airport.

I ask

the government: Are they okay with their federal counterparts making such cuts

to this province that have such negative impacts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, that's information that's very new to me right at this moment. I

look forward to working with officials in my department and with the officials

in the Town of Wabush to work with this ongoing or possible situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on the Fight Back against WERAC Facebook page, of which the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour is a member and actively engages other

members, there exists a disturbing level of misogyny, hate speech and treats of

violence directed at WERAC volunteers. One person proposed putting a bounty on

the heads of WERAC volunteers to – quote – break out the banned guns and shot

guns and send them the eff on their way, never to return – end quote.

WERAC

members have emailed these concerns to the minister and to the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

I ask

the minister: Why, after having this pointed out to him, does he continue to

publicly interact with the people on this page and why he hasn't publicly

condemned such speech and will he do so now?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly do not condone any of these types of activities or behaviours by

members. One of the members of the WERAC committee actually wrote me making me

aware of contents of this particular group, in terms of some of the members and

their postings. I had responded to the member and to the page administrator

highlighting that it's highly inappropriate for any individual to make

commentary that would take a personal attack or could be anything but the

particular issue. It's unacceptable and that is something that I raised with the

page administrator on more than one occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources

made it very clear that the Natural Areas System Plan is WERAC's plan, yet two

WERAC members resigned because the minister refused to release the plan.

Under

the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act

it is the minister, not WERAC, who has the duty to develop and release the plan.

The Premier's 2019 mandate letter to the minister directs him, not WERAC, to

work on a Natural Areas System Plan.

I ask

the minister: Why is he shirking his duty and why he and the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour seem determined to distance themselves

from the plan and throw the volunteers of WERAC under the bus?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

thank the hon. Member for the question.

It is

definitely a valuable role that WERAC provides to advise the government as to

their position and their thoughts and views as to a Natural Areas System Plan.

They've been at this work for a considerable period of time, which we are all

well aware of, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the committee members for doing the work that they've done. This is

WERAC's plan; this is what they've brought forward and now what they're

consulting. They will, as part of their plan, report to the government as to the

findings resulting from the consultations that they're now undertaking.

Government will then assess the overall situation and determine next steps

forward.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker, but I would hope that there's an opportunity for me

to condemn the unnecessary rhetoric and the vile words that have been said on

quite frankly, unacceptable.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did

have a couple of questions for the Minister of Health about the plan for getting

back, not just to normal but to dealing with the backlog. Unfortunately, for me

I guess, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island has hijacked those

questions and we have a response. I'll now address a couple of questions to the

Minister of Finance.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance recently announced changes to the

Public Procurement Regulations to

provide a 10 per cent variance for local business, thus providing it with an

advantage when it comes to bidding on government contracts. I certainly applaud

him for that move.

I ask

the minister: Would you be willing to take this concept further and explore

breaking down large contracts into smaller components that local companies have

the capacity to bid on, as well as revisiting current tender bundling processes

in order to provide further opportunities for local business?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Member for his question.

This is

important. Yes, to answer the question, I'm willing to look at that and any

suggestions that any Members of this Legislature or any member of the public can

make on improving and increasing business locally.

I notice

the water on our tables, Mr. Speaker, is not from a Newfoundland and Labrador

producer. That's no slight to anybody, but I think everybody in this province

has to get our mindset on buying local and supporting local if we're going to

recover from this pandemic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it's great that

the Minister of Finance has taken this initiative to support local business, but

even when it comes to procurement of products and services which require three

quotes, for example, or for purchases which can be sole-sourced, I continue to

hear from local business about these purchases going to large mainland-based

companies, even though there are local providers able to supply the products

and/or services at competitive rates.

I ask

the minister: What direction and/or education is being given to employees of

core government agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations to ingrain

the mindset, as he says, to support local business at every possible

opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

a topic near and dear to my heart. I think even ordering online, which became

the norm for people during the pandemic, we've got to get back to supporting

local business. We've got to find ways of supporting online purchasing for local

businesses.

Mr.

Speaker, the point that the Member raises is very important. I will have a

discussion with him after Question Period on this and seek further input from

him, and any Member of the Legislature, any Member of the public on ways that we

can support local business and to ensure we strengthen our economy within trade

provisions and following the rules. We obviously need to follow the rules, Mr.

Speaker, but in providing local preference, it's something that is very

important to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 14 it was brought to my attention by some very concerned

citizens in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas that an RFP went out to

make changes to the lab in the Central Newfoundland Regional Centre in Grand

Falls-Windsor. After raising the question, I was told by officials that

eventually positions would be lost over time. The Minister of Health went on to

say on May 27, the hub would be located in Gander and it will mean very little

to Grand Falls-Windsor.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that there will be no positions lost at the

lab in Grand Falls-Windsor in any form and there will be no reduction in

services as to keep the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre the main hub

lab for services in Central Newfoundland.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very important issue to residents of my community and many,

many more residents outside the community as they depend on these services. The

minister said that changes will mean very little to Grand Falls-Windsor. Very

little is very subjective. One position lost or any reduction in services could

mean very little to one person, but to a family that could mean their whole

world throughout my district.

Mr.

Speaker, many people are behind this issue that myself and the Member for

Exploits raised last month, including the Grand Falls-Windsor council who are

holding a rally tomorrow to make sure that nothing else gets taken from our town

and our district in Central Newfoundland. Over the years they've raised money

for the health sector services inside the hospital and the Lionel Kelland

Hospice. They brought data centres to the table.

Many of

these things seem to be getting lost along the way, and I'm here to say now that

the residents aren't going to take it anymore and neither am I. We're not going

to stand for this. I would like to call on government to make sure that these

essential services will not be changed whatsoever – nothing will be changed –

including positions, whether it be through attrition or whatnot.

We want

the government to have transparency when it comes to this, especially post

COVID, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to lose any positions or any services

throughout my district. We'll stand for that until we get that transparency.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

welcome the opportunity to clear the air because it's been really thickened by

misinformation lately. There will be no change to the level of service for

patients in Grand Falls-Windsor or their physicians as regards to laboratory

services. There will be no job losses in the Grand Falls-Windsor lab as a result

of these changes.

What

will happen is that they will get some state-of-the-art equipment and some new

backup equipment as part of an RFP. The reason the RFP has gone out now is that

we felt it would be best to do a provincial RFP as there are four centres across

the province whose lab equipment is so old it will not last to the end of the

year.

This was

done as part of a provincial lab reform service. It involved pathologists, it

involved laboratory scientists and it has been done with the intent of providing

the best possible service to everybody. It will, in actual fact, enhance the

service in the more rural areas of Central West.

Mr.

Speaker, I make no apologies for doing this at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker,

affordable, reliable and safe child care is, as we all know, a necessary

component of a functioning society, especially one that's, in our case now,

trying to create employment. We're trying to decrease out-migration, increase

in-migration, increase our population and bolster our workforce. These are all

essential for a growing economy.

This

petition today is presented to urge the government to develop a child care

strategy that will provide this type of affordable, accessible and quality child

care for Newfoundland and Labrador parents of different economic and social

backgrounds. Mr. Speaker, we know that affordable, reliable, safe child care are

keys to a healthy society. We know that affordable daycare is not only

essentially; it's necessary. If parents are going to be able to go back to work,

they need daycare; they need affordable daycare. There is no way around that.

Mr.

Speaker, we know that during the COVID pandemic, parents have been struggling to

meet the demands and the needs of being at home, and particularly for some

women, work has moved home. Often, women are responsible for juggling two jobs,

child care and their paid work throughout the day. In many cases, spouses are

not at home to assist. For some families, there may be some help from a spouse,

but generally for many, especially single moms, they must now juggle the child

care responsibilities and home schooling on top of their paid work.

Mr.

Speaker, we've heard from many parents and many mothers pulling this double

duty. One mom was staying up, we heard from, until 2 in the morning doing

university assignments, getting up with her five-year-old at 8 in the morning

because schools are closed. Her husband was working on rotation. She's

desperately hoping that schools are going to reopen in September, but the

pressure is on.

What

we're looking at is women in our province urgently need access to child care,

and a lack of supports can negatively impact their careers, their mental health

and well-being of their children. We have a stand-alone department of the Status

of Women. Quite frankly, it's sad and unsatisfactory that the minister

responsible for women's issues has been so quiet, silent. That silence is

deafening and it has been deafening for many people and many women across this

province.

Mr.

Speaker, we are asking for the government – they have to come up with a plan, a

long-term, sustainable plan to increase the number of quality, publicly funded

child care spaces so that women can fully participate in the workforce. As well,

we know that June 26, in short two weeks from now, we're going to see the end of

the subsidies that are provided for essential workers. We want to know what's

going to happen then.

Mr.

Speaker, these are all very relevant and critical issues that have to be

addressed, and women are waiting for answers to these questions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague across the way. She

brings up a very good point, Mr. Speaker. I guess until I got into the position

of Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, I had no idea how

important child care was to this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

certainly understand the importance, Mr. Speaker, of supporting young families,

actually supporting the sector of early childhood development. We've made

child care and services within the province.

Mr.

Speaker, the last report on child care fees from the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives stated that child care fees in St. John's have plummeted 24 per

cent since 2017. We're continually investing in child care, some $17 million

annually. We just put $14.7 million into the compensation grant during COVID-19.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, that's scheduled to finish on the 26th, but it's not lost on me, the

importance of child care within the province and we'll do everything to ensure

that families have the right to affordable and accessible child care.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

We're approaching the time

when the Standing Order say we have to go to the private Member's motion, so we

don't have time for another petition today.

I'll

call on the Member for Lake Melville to present his private Member's motion

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

the extra minute. I'm sure we're going to use it wisely here today in this very

important topic.

start, I will reread the resolution for today that I entered in yesterday:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil is one of the least

carbon-intensive extractive crudes and emits significantly less greenhouse gas

emissions than other oil-producing jurisdictions per barrel of oil extracted;

and

WHEREAS

upon completion of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project and the forthcoming

closure of the Holyrood Generating Station, 98 per cent of electricity consumed

in the province will be generated from renewal energy; and

WHEREAS

in March of 2019, the provincial government released The Way Forward on

Climate Change, a five-year action plan which outlined 33 actions to reduce

provincial greenhouse gas emissions and 17 actions to build resilience to

climate impacts;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador in their commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas

emissions by 2050.

I am

moving that and this is seconded by my colleague the MHA for Fortune Bay - Cape

La Hune.

So with

that, Sir, I will start, and to my colleagues, I thank you all for the

opportunity to introduce this PMR today on what is truly a very, very serious

and important topic.

I'm

going to start with a definition as to what we mean when we talk about net zero.

First of all – and reading straight from a definition – net zero refers to a

striking of a balance between a jurisdiction involving greenhouse gas emissions

produced and greenhouse gas emissions eliminated or taken out of the atmosphere.

These terms I'm sure just a few years ago we may not have been as familiar with,

but we're all understanding the role of GHGs, the role of carbon in our energy,

in transportation, in so many other aspects of our life, and the unfortunate

harmful effects of these GHGs on our environment and how that leads to global

warming.

This

really culminated just in recent years. It was in 2015 – I think it was

December, just after I was first elected – some 196 countries reached an

agreement in Paris, France, called the

Paris Agreement , a very important international agreement. The intent of it

is to limit and to commit to limiting global warming to 1.5 to two degrees above

pre-industrial levels.

That

refers approximately back to the 1700s, 1800s, so we're measuring everything on

that benchmark on what has happened over the last 200 years, 300 years – about

200 years I'll say. Nations, countries, subnational governments, Indigenous

governments and many others – organizations, industry, communities and so on –

are all working very hard on this. Until this pandemic occurred it was the

preoccupation of the world, frankly, in terms of emerging issues.

At a

recent PMR that I did on electric vehicles and some of the moves of government,

I talked about the importance of understanding what 1.5 degrees or two degrees

difference in temperature is to all of us. We all like sunny days; we all like

warmer weather, but I can tell you that when you think about what has already

occurred in the world and what we're talking about in trying to limit global

warming, I'll give you this perspective: Five degrees colder than pre-industrial

levels, that was the ice age that we experienced in this province about 9,000

years ago. So two degrees warmer, going in the opposite direction, you can just

imagine how substantial – and I'll even use the word significant – a change and

effect that would be on our environment. In fact, we are already feeling this

now.

It's

interesting in our province, and given we have this long longitudinal occupation

in the world's geography, if you look to northern communities such as Nain,

where I live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and so on, projections from as recent as

2018 have indicated that the – and by the way, I should just backup for a

second. When we talk about limiting the average temperature in the world from

1.5 to two, we're talking about the average temperature all over the world. The

unfortunate thing for our province and for Labrador and other northern areas is

that it is more heightened, more accentuated and a greater problem.

For

example, by the middle of this century – that's just 30 years from now – we're

anticipating that Nain will see winters which will on average be 7.3 degrees

warmer. Where I live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, it's calculated as being six

degrees warmer. Here, in this city, St. John's, it's 3.4 degrees warmer. For

those who would like to go gardening and maybe some extended seasons, yeah fine,

but you can just imagine what that will do to our oceans, to so many other

systems around us and the change. We're talking 30 years from now.

Mercifully, we have started to make some progress and I'm pleased to be part.

This is a collective effort, because the legislation that has been passed

tackling climate change has always been passed unanimously in this House. I

think that's a good thing. We can all take credit for it.

I was

pleased to serve as minister of Environment and Climate Change in 2016 when we

passed the first bill dealing with this, limiting greenhouse gas emissions to

large industrial emitters as Bill 34. It was passed in June of 2016. In October

of 2018, we finally, after a couple of years of interesting arm wrestling with

the federal government, saw an agreement for this province's climate change

strategy. It was accepted by Ottawa as striking a clear balance between the

economy and the environment and it did, most importantly, put a price on

pollution.

Just

last year, it was in March a little over a year ago, this province – and as I

indicated in the

preamble for the PMR – we released The Way Forward on Climate

Change. This contains, as I said, several actions across the economy. It

stimulates clean innovation and builds resilience to climate change. We've also

had other moves on electric vehicles, home energy efficiency, transportation

fuel efficiency and many other initiatives. So we are getting there. We

certainly have a long ways to go. As I said, who would have thought that it

would have taken a worldwide pandemic to really see serious progress around the

world on reducing emissions?

I'm

going to drop a little number here that people – for those that are listening

here and in home, as infections of COVID-19 have surged around the world, guess

what? Worldwide daily emissions of greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 17 per

cent. Just think about it. Just because industries have shut down as a result of

everything we have actually made greater progress on this problem than, I would

say, over the last 10, 20 years.

It's

also interesting that the UN suggests that we'll need to be reducing our GHGs

about 7.6 per cent per year, starting now, going into the future, if we are

going to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. So the virus itself has

actually caused a bit of a positive feature. If you've been looking at some of

the news reports of aerial photos of emissions over some of the larger

industrial cities of the world you can see the air is actually clearing up, and

it's quite dramatic.

It's

interesting that Newfoundland and Labrador actually has a very interesting

opportunity to play a key role here; hence the nature of the PMR today. We do

enjoy relatively clean hydrocarbons. We have a strong regulatory oversight, and

we have a tremendous industry providing clean growth technology. This supports

all aspects of the system of extraction through to production through to retail

and so on in our province. And we certainly have among the lowest carbon

intensity facilities in the world.

Just

last month, the Premier and government and Minister of Natural Resources and

many others joined the petroleum industry, the environmental industry, academia,

labour all came together in support of the province's oil and gas industry. It

was a great gathering. It was certainly unique; I have not seen anything like

it. And there were a variety of interesting and important statements that from

all those perspectives, they all saw the importance of – and I've heard it today

in questions – the importance of the oil and gas sector.

Some 30

per cent of our GDP comes from this industry. It is incredibly important to us.

I think the Opposition identified some 20,000-plus jobs – 24,000, I believe I

heard – tied to this sector. So we need it to thrive. We need it to thrive in a

way that we can demonstrate to the world that it can be done and we can keep on

working towards net zero.

There's

a key quote that I'd like to repeat by a colleague of mine and someone that I've

worked with in the past by Kieran Hanley. He's now serving as the executive

director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industry Association and

I think puts in perspective what we're trying to do here today.

The

success of Canada's offshore oil and gas industry is not just critical to the

economy of our province, but it's also a centrepiece of our clean growth

strategy. It is within our reach to set the global environmental standard for

the offshore industry and the solutions we develop here can be exported

worldwide for the betterment of the planet. There are opportunities for

immediate investments that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and set the stage

for Newfoundland and Labrador to become an international leader in offshore

clean tech.

Yesterday, I was noticing, I think it was the Third Party who was challenging

the Premier in Question Period about the partnership that our government is

seeking with Ottawa. I would suggest that the partnership we are talking about

is really about the role that we play in Confederation. It's interesting that

the role we play in Confederation – and since 1949 we have shared with Canada. I

often used to say, when Canada joined Newfoundland and Labrador in '49 – but we

have, since that time, shared our history, our culture, our resources, our

geography and our skill sets have all contributed to a great nation and we've

played a great role in it.

The

challenge we have is that we have this tremendous offshore resource, we have a

tremendous industry which is frankly among the leaders in the world and it can

help us get to the net-zero focus and objective of this PMR today. We need to do

it and we need to do it in a way that we can all help tackle this worldwide

problem because, unfortunately, what we are facing with climate change and

global warming is way more serious than COVID-19.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to pause. I'll look forward to the debate and hear

from the rest of my colleagues in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for his remarks and for moving the resolution.

On this

side of the House we have no problem in supporting the resolution, which is that

the “House supports the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in their

commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” This, of

course, Mr. Speaker, comes from the well-known – or we all know the term at

least – Paris accord which was signed generally in 2015, as I understand it, and

ratified in 2016.

It's

worth pausing a moment about that accord. It does indeed contain that

requirement that signatories reach that state of net zero by 2050. That's 30

years down the road. It also has another agreement in it, another requirement,

which is much closer – it's only 10 years down the road. That is that

signatories are required to – and Canada is a signatory – reduce their emissions

by 30 per cent below the levels they were at in 2005. That's 15 years ago.

Thirty per cent below the levels at 2005 and we're also signatories to that.

course, the hon. Member well knows, because of his involvement with

environmental matters, that steps have been taken toward that object. In fact,

there's data published by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador attempting

to mark our progress towards the longer term goal of 2050 and the shorter term

goal of 2030.

The

thing about 2050, of course, is that being 30 years into the future, it's an

easy thing to be in favour of because it doesn't threaten in any way anybody

who's making a living and is employed; they'll be finished their career in all

likelihood by the time 2050 comes along. It's a little bit like motherhood: It's

easy to be in favour of it. The goal of 30 per cent reduction to 2005 levels is

more of a stretch goal. That actually requires us to do a lot of things that may

be somewhat painful in the meantime and it's only 10 years away.

I'm

looking at a table here, which is from the government website. It's called

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act

Greenhouse Gas Reporting. We have data here up until 2016, but at that time it's

just interesting to look because these are industries that are going to have to

do something with their emissions if we're going to have a chance of meeting our

goals, whether it be 2050 or 2030.

Who's

the biggest emitter? It's Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, mainly at the

Holyrood generation station. That's well over a million tons of greenhouse gas

emissions per year. The next one is NARL Refining, about to change ownership; in

other words, the Come By Chance oil refinery. That, again, is well over a

million. The next one is not quite a million; it's Rio Tinto – Energy &

Minerals. After that, it drops down to the hundred-thousand level and below, but

the three biggies are the ones I just mentioned: Holyrood Thermal Generating

Station, NARL Refining and Iron Ore Company of Canada. Obviously those are the

money shots right there.

seems, Mr. Speaker, that the data could be more up to date because it's not yet

updated to 2019 – in other words, last calendar year – so it's hard to tell

whether we're actually making progress there and tell whether the large emitters

have been able to achieve reduction or not. I hope the government will be

updating the information. We are halfway through the following year, 2020, and

we don't know what happened in 2019. If we're going to judge and milestone our

progress towards these goals, then it behoves the government to post up the data

that tell us if we're making progress or we're not.

I just

take, in the limited time I have, the three

WHEREAS clauses and pause on those

before I get to the resolved clause. The first one says that “Newfoundland and

Labrador's offshore oil is one of the least carbon intensive extractive crudes

and emits significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than other oil-producing

jurisdictions per barrel of oil extracted ….” I think we all agree that is a

fact on the ground. That is factually true. It should be and is a boasting point

about our offshore and the product that is produced on our offshore.

However,

we shouldn't kid ourselves that it's well understood in the rest of Canada or

lump us in with what goes on in Alberta and doesn't recognize the important

distinctions between the kind of product we produce and what typically gets

produced in Alberta. The country needs to know that and I don't think the

country does.

We need

more exploration because the world still requires oil. If it's going to burn oil

or use oil – and used for many other things than burning – ours is the most

carbon-friendly oil for the world to be using. The world needs our oil. We're

not flipping a switch and changing over to some other form of energy, away from

oil and gas. That doesn't happen that way; we're going to need time for that.

Our product should be at large in the world and in demand in the rest of the

world for years to come as we carry out that transition.

The next

clause deals with the dreaded Muskrat Falls. I'm pleased to note that the hon.

Member's motion, the government-supported motion, actually has kind words for

Muskrat Falls. It says –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm drawing attention on that

one.

It says:

“WHEREAS upon completion of the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Project and the

forthcoming closure of the Holyrood Generating Station” – let's hope that can be

accomplished – “98 per cent of electricity consumed in the Province will be

generated from renewable energy ….” That, of course, is referring to Muskrat

Falls.

Unfortunately, Muskrat Falls was conceptualized and construction started at a

certain budgetary amount. Had it stuck to that amount, we'd probably still have

a consensus in Newfoundland and Labrador that it is a visionary project in the

way described in the

WHEREAS clause in this resolution. In other words, it's

visionary in the sense that it is part of the transition that this country, this

province and the world must go through towards green energy.

Muskrat

Falls plays an important role in that for this province. There's lots more work

to do on that, of course, as the Minister of Natural Resources well knows and

the mover of the resolution well knows. For example, electrification of our

vehicle fleet and many other things that have been studied by the Public

Utilities Board.

Had the

project remained on the mark of the budget that it was budgeted for – which I

think was in the vicinity of $7.2 billion with interest costs, I believe –

instead of doubling in cost, then we would probably feel differently about it

and view it as a visionary project. Regrettably, that didn't happen. So you

could say the concept may have been sound but the execution was poor.

Who was

responsible for the execution? Nalcor. The execution was bungled by an outfit

called Nalcor. We know all about that and the details of it from the report of

the commission of inquiry so recently tabled in this House.

It's not

a secret that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did support the concept of

Muskrat Falls back in the day. As the mistakes in the construction and the cost

overruns piled up it lost favour more and more and more; but, as I say, the

failing was in the execution, arguably not in the concept. It would've helped

matters had the Public Utilities Board been mandated to use the most recent

financial information and do a full review of the costs and all issues

surrounding Muskrat Falls. That is, after all, the institution of democracy that

we have for carrying out that kind of protective function for the public purse.

The

Public Utilities Board has expertise in public utilities matters, power

generation and the like, and it is my opinion and was at the time, because I

signed a letter along with a number of other prominent lawyers asking that the

government submit the whole case for Muskrat Falls to the Public Utilities

Board. This, of course, as we know, never happened. Had it happened, it may well

have been that the Public Utilities Board would've found enough matters of

concern and even alarm about the project at that point in time that it would not

have gone ahead. But that is speculation, it wasn't done. So that important

safeguard of the public interest was not applied.

In any

event, I come back to the point, which is simply that many on the government

side back in those days – and I include the Premier in that – supported the

concept, supported the principle. The problem arose in the execution, and that

lies at the feet of Nalcor.

Now, a

brief remark on the third

WHEREAS clause. It remarks, as government resolutions

are want to do, it congratulates the government on

The Way Forward on Climate Change in Newfoundland and Labrador

five-year action plan which outline various actions.

Regrettably, it's hard to tell, because of the data on the government website

being out of date, what progress this five-year plan has had. We're all behind

the goal of meeting our targets, as Canada has agreed to meet, both for 2030 and

2050, but what we need is we need measurable goals and then we need to measure

them and measure progress towards achieving these goals. Right now, with out of

date data, that's hard to do.

Mr.

Speaker, I just summarize by saying the public thinks that this is an issue, and

since reference is made to the government's action plan, it's of interest to

note that a major national poll was released this week. That poll said,

“Percentage of residents saying the provincial government has done a 'good job'

of handling each of the following natural resource and environment issues,” and

it's broken down by province. When you come to Newfoundland and Labrador, under

environment and climate change, only 45 per cent think that the government has

done a good job of handling the issue – only 45 per cent – which means a

majority of people appear to think the government has not done a good job. So

let's just say there is lots of room for improvement over there on the

government side.

I have

appointed myself, as Leader of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, a

committee of eminent persons in the community, and they're charged with

reporting to me – and they will do that by the end of July – on what is to be

done to enable this province to meet its climate change goals by 2030 and, of

course, by 2050. I'm looking forward to receiving that report.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an

honour and a privilege to speak on this private Member's motion before the floor

this afternoon. There are a couple of things I would like to outline. The Member

opposite who just spoke from the Windsor area – is it Windsor area? Yes.

MR. CROSBIE:

Windsor Lake.

MR. BRAGG:

Windsor Lake.

He made

some reference to some data that's on our website. The most updated data we have

is to 2016-2018. I think he quoted from prior ones, so it is updated: 2018 ' s

are online; 2019 ' s

will be available in October of this year. It was correct on the major causes of

emissions in our province, so the ones that came forward.

As I

look around this room and I look at the many Speakers that are posted on the

wall, I just wonder at which point did we talk about net zero in this House. If

we look at Speaker Osborne, and Verge and then Wiseman, beyond that, I don't

think net zero was even a term that was probably common in this House, or even

the province for that matter, but net zero is something that is very important

to us.

Net zero

is defined as “where there are no carbon emissions, or where emissions are

completely offset by other actions that remove carbon from the atmosphere, such

as planting trees ….”

For us

to reach net zero by 2050, we seriously have to look at the way that we conduct

ourselves. The Member for Lake Melville talked about where we've been, and since

COVID-19. It reminds me of the old saying that there's not a bad wind that don't

blow someone good. COVID-19 has lowered emissions.

If you

look at the airline industry, that's cut by 95 per cent, I'm told, Mr. Speaker.

I live in a community which commonly you would look up and you would see a half

a dozen airlines at any given hour of the day flying over our community. Today,

it's a rarity, during the COVID-19 event, to see. Not that we need COVID-19 to

continue any longer, but it just shows how something can affect the world in

which we live to be so dramatic.

pandemic throughout the world, believe it or not, effects our climate change,

and to see that our temperatures may rise as much as the hon. Member mentioned.

It may sound appealing that you're going to look at a seven degree temperature

increase for a community in the northern part of our community, but look at the

effects. Only earlier the hon. Member talked about an oil spill and the effect

that would have upon their community of Postville. Can you imagine what seven

degrees would mean to the Arctic, to the North, to the ice cap?

We have

to compete and we have to do our best, and each and every one of us, in this

room and who's listening and who is not listening, everyone in the world, not

even the province, have to their part because 2050 needs to be a reality. It's a

target we need to achieve for.

Someone

may say net zero, is net zero achievable? Do you know what? If you don't have a

target and you don't make something achievable, there's nothing to reach for.

In this

province, we're looking at installing units where electric vehicles can travel

the province. If you look back at 20 years ago, if someone said electric

vehicle, it was a small toy that someone would have gotten for Christmas. The

biggest electric vehicle in everybody's house is probably the vacuum cleaner or

anything that moved around, but right now if you look at where we're changing.

We look

at our transportation industry and where we need to go there. Then let's look

forward to the new technologies because we can laugh and say, well, we won't

have that many new technologies. Let's look back at the last 20, the last 50

years.

remember a time, Mr. Speaker, when we watched Maxwell Smart and he had a shoe

phone. Look at how the world is changed here in technology. Yes, we struggle in

the province right now when it comes to opportunities for Wi-Fi and cellular

service, but we have come so far in this world, it's unbelievable. It's

unbelievable that companies like Tesla will launch a satellite over Africa that

gives everybody in Africa Internet service and cellphone service. This is where

we are. So to look at us for net zero, it's achievable.

Thirty

years' time puts me at 86 years old. I hope I live to see it that we're at the

point that we're at net zero or very close to it. Without aiming for this and

without making a move on this, Mr. Speaker, what we really need – and my notes

here says that 77 nations have made aspirational statements related to achieving

net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. What we need is a plan because, to date,

no country – even including Canada, although we've announced it – does not has a

comprehensive plan. What we need is a plan so that we all achieve for net zero.

We all

do our thing. If you look everywhere now you'll see zero idle. A lot of people

would laugh at me going through the drive-through. I only go through the

drive-through now because of COVID-19. That forces me to go through the

drive-through. I always park, shut off my vehicle and walk inside. Unbeknownst

to me, I am making a difference.

If we

can reduce the emissions in this province and throughout this world, and save

this environment of ours for future generations to come – because you have to

look at it, we talk about oil industry for our province. Yes, we're highly

reliant on the oil industry but much of the world are reliant on the industry.

There

was a time when coal was master. Coal was where everybody was – burning coal. I

challenge anybody here if they could remember the last chunk of coal that was

burned in their house or in their grandparent's house.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Greenspond.

MR. BRAGG:

Greenspond might have had the

last chunk of coal. I know gold was in Greenspond, I don't know about coal.

If you

look at it, the opportunities we have to make a difference falls on all of our

shoulders. Every single person in this Legislature must do their part, must

promote it. I had a chance to speak on electric vehicles a few years ago – or

last year I think it was – and talked about the (inaudible) energy. I've even

changed both of my vehicles now to be lower consumption vehicles so I'm getting

good gas mileage. I'm no longer into the one that's burning 20 and 22 litres per

kilometre; I'm down to 6.5 and 8 in my vehicle.

It might

still sound like I'm a terrible guy but I can't wait for the technology of the

electric vehicle so I can go in peace for 400 kilometres, which I would need to

get home. For us to do our

part is vitally important.

I can't

see anyone here who couldn't be challenged. I look and there are Members in this

Legislature that probably came from a fishing enterprise or came farming. Those

are other areas where we're looking at there are lots of opportunities for

electrification.

If we

look at our major buildings. The Member opposite talked about Muskrat Falls –

clean energy. If nothing else, we can have clean energy right there. That would

reduce Holyrood. Can you imagine what that would reduce our emissions in this

province?

So we

have to challenge ourselves, we need a plan, we have to get a plan out there. We

have to be serious, and that has to be not political, it has to be personal for

everyone. Everyone in this province, everyone in this country, everyone around

the globe must make it their part to do their part to lower greenhouse gas

emissions for this world that we live in.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I would relinquish my chair to the next hon. speaker.

Thank

you very much, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):

The Chair recognizes the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

interesting when you look at this private Member's motion – I'll just call it up

here. We like the resolution, especially the part: “… commitment to achieve

net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” It's the

preamble and the WHEREASes

beforehand that trouble us. Especially when we're describing oil as the least

carbon intensive or we refer to Muskrat Falls with its problems and

The Way Forward on Climate Change in

Newfoundland and Labrador .

It's

interesting because the Member across the House referenced the drop in

emissions, and we've all seen the pictures of just how clear the skies have

become. If there's anything clear about that – pardon the pun – is the fact that

it shows how quickly we can probably turn the environment around in many ways,

at least from the point of view of breathable air, acid rain, you name it.

Years

ago it was the ozone, hole in the ozone. You might remember the whole notion of

CFCs in aerosol cans. You may not realize that McDonalds at one time, certain

fast food outlets, served their food in Styrofoam packs. Now, they went to paper

and, basically, because a lot of people at the time started saying serve it to

me in a paper napkin, and I guess there was that grassroots approach to changing

action and changing the environment, so you've gone to a renewable resource.

Net zero

is achievable and I agree – our party agrees with the fact that net zero is

achievable, but there are plans and there are plans. There are the plans that

say, I plan to retire someday and then there are the plans that say, I plan to

retire someday and here are the steps I'm going to take along the way, the hard

targets to show that I will retire someday. There's no use saying I'm going to

retire someday, well if I don't invest in some sort of a pension plan, along

those lines. That doesn't work out, never does.

Britain

set a target 10 years ago to be coal-free. They're coal-free for generating

electricity. Things can be done and the turnaround can be done much more

quickly. Now it appears that many jurisdictions such as Denmark and Norway have

signed on or are signing on to the net-zero 2050. This target is grounded in

hard science and from the intergovernmental panel on climate change; it's a

noble aspiration. The commitment is largely optics for the most

part in public

relations if it doesn't have a detailed and concrete plan behind it.

For us

to support this government's commitment, we would need to see a plan with

benchmarks and targets in five-year increments. Who knows, maybe we'll be net

zero long before 30 years. I have a funny feeling, long before 30 years comes

up, we'll be into a greener economy and oil may be obsolete. Keep in mind at one

time before oil, there was whale oil; that's what they used. Then oil in the

ground was discovered. That industry died out relatively quickly.

If we

were convinced by the past environmental and sustainability record of the

government that you were indeed truly committed to this project, we might be

more inclined to jump on board right now, but the track record has not been the

most encouraging. I'll give you some examples of what causes us concern: the

lobbying efforts and the recent decision to cut environmental assessments for

oil exploration which has an impact – or what the FFAW's fear, it basically has

impact on their renewable industry. They have felt ignored and disrespected as a

result of it and this is a sustainable industry. The refusal to entertain

independent offshore environmental and safety entity – you might remember a

motion in this House previous – fish harvesters being left out of the loop on

seismic decisions.

More

generally, we have the current troubling behaviour of ministers concerning the

natural areas system plan and the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory

Council. There's the lax attitude toward salmon aquaculture, impact on marine

environment and wild salmon. Then, there's Ragged Beach and the East Coast Trail

getting no protection, even though it could be easy to do so. Let's not forget

the methylmercury mitigation at Muskrat Falls. And what about the

all-in-one-on-oil news conference that was a snub to the thousands of young

people in this province concerned about climate change and their futures?

Think

about the marches we have attended that have been out here. Young people are

looking for change; they are concerned. We have heard the comments: Well,

they're foolish; what do you think this province is built on, this world is

built on? But you know what? I have a lot of faith in this group of young people

that they're not bound by these fears; they will set the future for us whether

we're on board or not – period. They will be the innovators. If I find a way to

get off oil, they will be off more quickly than we think, so part of it here is

we have to tap into that resource.

cannot sweep all this aside, about the actions and inactions, by simply saying

that we're now all in or we now like net-zero 2050. We need more. We are having

trouble supporting this as written because it will condone weak behaviour and we

don't wish to be a collaborator to weak behaviour and weak action. To be clear,

our party believes in green jobs and a sustainably economy. We want to see a

sensible plan – I'm going to say that again – a sensible plan to ween ourselves

off oil, not all at once but a plan with hard targets and measurable outcomes.

That is

where the 2050 commitment is simply kicking the can down the road for 30 years.

You've heard that phrase usually in terms of the economy. We have to do

something about the fiscal problem now. We can't kick it down the road for 30

years for our children. In effect, if we are inactive on climate, that's exactly

what we're doing for our young people. We're solving a fiscal problem by

creating an environmental deficit.

With

teeth, this plan could be very important and even critical; otherwise, this

plan, without commitment, sounds more like a recipe for waiting and stalling.

How does simply announcing a 2050 deadline without details qualify as fast

moving?

If this

is about showing the federal government that we're all in on oil and we need to

show that the NL NDP are supportive of federal efforts, then we will say

unequivocally to the federal government we cannot support this motion as written

because it does not go far enough. It's missing teeth. We want benchmarks and

targets. We want programs and incentives in five-year measurable plans.

We have

offered and will offer to continue to work on building concrete initiatives such

as this. We are the party to make the concrete proposals on how to go and do it

through a Select Committee on economic recovery. So far we have not been taken

up on this.

We are

not prepared to write a blank cheque. It's not going to happen. Someone must

keep their eye on the ball of sustainable development and that task appears to

fall onto us.

With

that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I put forward the following amendment. I propose the

following amendment to the private Member's motion, seconded by the Member for

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, as follows: that the final clause of the motion be

amended by adding immediately after the year 2050 –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

seconder is not in.

MR. J. DINN:

Then the Member for Labrador

West.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. J. DINN:

I figured that. I was waiting

to see if someone was going to call me on it. You never know what the rules are

here sometimes.

The

final clause of the motion be amended by adding immediately after the year 2050

a comma and the words, “which will include detailed multi-year plans with

clearly defined hard targets. I believe we have the support of the party moving

this motion.” Whether you need to take this under advisement, Mr. Speaker, I'll

leave it to you.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House will recess

shortly to review the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

Order,

please!

We have

reviewed the amendment and found that the amendment is in order.

The

Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

I don't always win amendments

but when I do …

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

call upon people to support this amendment. To continue, net zero 2050

assumes that Muskrat

Falls will counteract the emissions from areas such as offshore so we don't have

to impose the maximum emission reductions on the oil patch. It assumes that we

won't need the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station, so what's the plan in

relation to that?

course, we know that the rationale for Muskrat Falls is that it would eliminate

Holyrood's high emissions, but right now we're not sure when Muskrat Falls is

going to be up and running. We know when the first payment is due. We're not

sure when it's going to be up and running.

Part of

the whole aspect of developing a plan is the contingency plans, the what-ifs,

the Plan A, the Plan B. I think it was in

Rare Birds you have to have a Plan B. We know that in February the Nalcor

CEO, Stan Marshall, said that the reliability concerns with the Labrador-Island

Link software could cause the company to continue extending the life of

Holyrood, the power plant, for the foreseeable future, certainly longer than

2021. We know there are always going to be reliability issues with the

Labrador-Island Link, especially in the winter.

In a

recent excerpt from Prime Minister Trudeau's campaign speech he noted that

putting a price on pollution, protecting our oceans, the phasing out of coal,

the banning of single-use plastics: these aren't piecemeal policies but crucial

parts of a larger plan. I guess that's the other aspect here. We don't want a

piecemeal approach; we want to see some coordinated plan, realizing fully that

plans, once they hit the road, might necessarily have to change.

wonder how does the recent loosening of environmental protections on seismic

testing protect our oceans exactly? What about the FFAW concerns? They do not

feel that they are protected. We know that Prime Minister Trudeau said that

businesses are stepping up too, but not fast enough. We need them to act,

because as a government and as citizens we can't do it alone. Are oil companies

doing their part? Will they do more? We know that other companies are moving

faster than the oil companies in resolving this issue.

We do

have to move faster than before. We have to be like the young people, the

generation coming after us. They're hungry for change and we need to make sure

that this world is there for them. We know that federally the New Democratic

Party climate change plan talks about creating at least 300,000 new jobs and

building the clean energy future.

Part of

this plan should be about building this clean energy future. Not about simply

reducing to net zero, but how do we capitalize on it and create the employment

here. There has been much talk and much discussion here about how do we start

growing our own economy, everything from PPE, Mr. Speaker, to tourism here at

home, to even the bottled water. How do we turn a green economy into something

that benefits us? We can't just simply say we need oil. Yeah, but, you know

what, we have to have confidence in ourselves to do a bit more.

For that

reason, seeing that you're looking up at the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I know my

time is running out rapidly, I will basically say a plan with hard targets is

something that – we can support this plan, this motion. Also, hopefully we can

come up with a plan that not only gets us to net zero, but also turns our

economy into a robust, green economy.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the Members who have spoken on the private Member's resolution already.

I want to thank the Member opposite for the amendment, which is one that I think

we'll be supporting, as you know.

However,

there is room I think for clarification, some of the comments that would have

been by some Members. I just want to talk a little bit about the regional

assessment and why that was important both to the industry, to the province and

really of a national interest. This was about, as the Member opposite mentioned,

about oil and gas exploration. I wouldn't want anybody to think that this

doesn't come without the appropriate amount of assessment that would be required

to protect our environment.

I think

what makes us unique, Mr. Speaker – and this is really around a net-zero-by-2050

resolution that we want to support here and we should support unanimously as a

Legislature. Getting to net zero by 2050 is not something that has been just

talked about recently for us. There's been a lot of planning that's gone on, a

lot of work that has taken us from where we are today, from either where we were

back, even as late as 2016. I'll go over some of the key things that have been

happening already. This is just not a recent response, this is indeed

discussions we've been having as a government going back to early 2016.

Mr.

Speaker, I would say if you look at our platform that we ran on in 2015, this

was all part of this. We implemented many of the actions that would have come

out of this. I think all of us, as we look at our economies and our society in a

general sense, even from our Members here, there are not a lot of people, not a

lot of electric cars that I would see, vehicles that I would see in the parking

lots. As a matter of fact, I think there's probably only one of the 40 Members

here, so there's lots of rooms for improvements, even with the comments we would

see that are made even within our own Members.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to speak a little bit about the regional assessment, just to

clarify some of the comments that have been made. If you look at the resource we

have offshore Newfoundland and Labrador – and even though this particular

resolution is how we get to net zero by 2050, I want to mention that the world

today, as we know it, still has a significant demand on oil. That is something

we must take into consideration as we transition a society, an economy, from

where we are today as we transition to net zero by 2050. It has taken many, many

decades to get us where we are today, where 60 per cent of the energy demand in

the world is determined by some kind of oil.

Mr.

Speaker, what we refer to here is this is really a transitional period as to

getting us from where we are now to where we want to be in the future. It will

take some time. So when you look at the areas that must change, if you look at

large industry, as an example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, it's about 35 per

cent of our greenhouse gas emissions. So it goes without saying, to get to net

zero by 2050, there is a significant focus we must put on large industry, and

that is exactly what we're doing.

As an

example, if you look to our oil and gas industry – and I think all countries,

including Canada, back in 2015 and prior to that were making decisions to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. So either we look at the Paris accord or Copenhagen,

all the resolutions and decisions that were made in place by world leaders, to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions is what we all want. So we must put in place a

mechanism to allow that to happen.

In the

backdrop of all of this we are using oil. We are using oil, some 90 million to

100 million barrels a day, to support the energy sector. It's not that we can

replace oil overnight, so we must transition out of oil. If you're looking for a

way to do that, you must look globally to the jurisdictions that actually can

have a least carbon footprint per barrel on oil. Offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador does that. We've been able to do that, and from a carbon-per-barrel

intensity we have some of the best resources in the world, and other people that

actually monitor this stuff would verify what we're saying.

So that

is the reason why this regional assessment, to allow industry to go out to make

sure that some of the best transition oil that we would have available to us

would be able to use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a global context.

That is why this regional assessment is important to us.

The

focus of this private Member's resolution is on net zero by 2050. I've already

said that large industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is about 35 per cent of

the greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation, by the way, which is what we would

see in just about all jurisdictions, is about 34 per cent. So this is about all

of us here, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, how we move about, how we

access services. That is about 34 per cent. One way we could actually reduce

that is to have more electric vehicles available.

When you

look at decisions and programs that we have put in place just recently by

putting up charging stations, making that available – and I think one of the

Members who spoke before me made mention of this – this is important as we

transition from gasoline driven and diesel-driven vehicles, we move into an era

where there will be electric vehicles. These are some of the things that we've

been able to do.

Also

within Newfoundland and Labrador, from an electricity point of view – so these

are people that were using, let's say, diesel generators, Mr. Speaker. There's

an RFP that has been put out from the Department of Natural Resources as part of

the plans that we've been putting in place to get those communities, those

20-odd communities, primarily in rural and remote communities, to get their

carbon emissions reduced as well. We can do that, whether we use a complement of

solar, wind and so on, or looking for small hydro projects.

Mr.

Speaker, this work is ongoing. We know that this takes time, but this is part of

the plan we're putting in place to get to net zero by 2050.

Buildings; we still have a number of buildings – and even our residential

dwellings in Newfoundland and Labrador that use amounts of home heating fuel.

Mr. Speaker, over time, part of the plan would be to switch those residences and

those large buildings that we have in our province, to get them into a greener

option. They could be a combination of hydro, could be a combination of wind,

solar and so on.

So you

know where I'm coming from when I talk about this, this is in a transition

period. This is the reason why some people might think that 2050 might seem like

a long time but when you look at our world and the economy that's so dependent

on oil and gas in its day-to-day business, it will take some time.

We have

a lot of creativity within our minds and young people in Newfoundland and

Labrador. It has been mentioned already, about some of the people who have been

joining in in reducing and looking for an action plan. Mr. Speaker, I met with

many of them. I met with quite a few of them. The ideas coming from them was in

recognition that this is the state of the world today and that we are dependent

on fossil fuels, but they agree that this is not something that can happen

quickly. We must transition out.

I would

also say, Mr. Speaker, we look at it as a source of fuel, but it's not just

fuel. When we look at what drives our vehicles, we can replace that with

electric vehicles, but you look at this room itself, if you look at the things

we see just right in front of us, the things that are using the petrochemical

industry. Some would argue somewhere around 50 per cent of the oil and gas

that's produced in the world today will go to support the petrochemical

industry. It could be the chairs we're sitting on, it could be the desks we're

using, it could be even some of the clothes that people wear, still come from

the petrochemical industry. Let's not forget, it's just not the fuels we use to

drive our vehicles or how we use energy within our buildings, there are many

other components of fossil fuels and the petrochemical business that we see.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a plan. We've been putting a plan in place, which started,

really, back in June 2016;

whereas, as a province, we announced our greenhouse

gas emissions reductions. I think the mover of the motion mentioned this today.

That was just six months into our mandate, Mr. Speaker, we were able to put

together our greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan.

This was

all part of looking at a calendar that got very busy in 2016, because I know I

was very proud to be able to chair one of the early meetings on behalf of all

the premiers within the country, early in the spring of that year, when we

started laying the framework for the Pan-Canadian Framework, which took place in

December of that same year. Within one year of forming government, we were able

to put in place a provincial plan and be part of a signatory where 93 per cent

of Canadians, as a population, were part of a Pan-Canadian Framework for

greenhouse gas emissions or for climate change. That all happened in one year.

It didn't stop there, Mr. Speaker, as our march to net zero by 2050 continued on

into 2017 and into 2018.

The

frameworks took some time in the making, but, as a province, we must all be

proud of the people who live here, in support of the people who are coming

behind us, the next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, two things:

safeguard the future, safeguard our environment for the next generation and for

future generations; but also we much keep in mind that we put this plan in

place, safeguarding the people that we have who use those services today. There

are a lot of people in our province who rely on industries like the oil and gas

industry for their livelihood today.

To think

that we can actually put in place measures to take net zero that can happen

within a few years would not be prudent; it would not be responsible. So we do

it over time, remain competitive and also think and never forget that we are not

in this world alone; we are a piece of it. We are one province, a component of

greenhouse gas emissions, but it doesn't stop within one province. When that

gets emitted into the air, it has a profound impact all over the world.

We can

have a part to play when producing and putting in place good transition oil, as

an example, that the world will still use, with a lower carbon footprint, where

in a general sense, we put in place measures to reduce everybody's greenhouse

gas emissions.

I want

to talk a little bit about that, why that's important because that continued. I

took you from 2016 to 2017 into 2018; there were a number of initiatives that

were taken. Mr. Speaker, in 2018 and 2019 some big decisions were made on behalf

of all of Atlantic Canada when the four premiers agreed that Newfoundland and

Labrador were producing more hydro at the time. We were a green province when

you compare to the use of electricity but we could help other provinces.

As the

four Atlantic provinces, we agreed to look at options of opportunities in

Newfoundland and Labrador; as an example, how we could get places like Nova

Scotia off its coal energy. What a lot of people wouldn't know is that Nova

Scotia currently uses 1,400 megawatts of energy but it's driven by coal. New

Brunswick would be around 400 megawatts of their electricity comes from coal. We

could help them, working together by putting in better transmission

infrastructure. We can use the hydro opportunities, the potential that we have

in our province here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to help them get off coal

which would make the whole Atlantic Canadian region greener, getting them closer

to net zero.

When you

look at all these options – putting in charging stations for vehicles, getting

our 34 per cent down and lower, making sure that the offshore industry we work

with them, work with that industry to advance 2030, understanding that if

they're going to do business in this province they, too, would have to reduce

their greenhouse gas emissions. As large industry work with places, as been just

mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition with North Atlantic as a refinery,

work with them to get their greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Speaker. Do it over

time, do it strategically, industry at a time and do it, making sure that we

protect the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and continue to attract

investment, but also keeping in mind that we have potential to help other

provinces reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr.

Speaker, I can remember conversations that I would have had with the prime

minister, many federal ministers and other premiers and I can envision a Canada

where from Quebec to Newfoundland and Labrador it could be net zero and we could

do that by 2050. Newfoundland and Labrador would play a significant role in

getting Atlantic Canada down to net zero by 2050.

We have

the untapped resources right here in hydro, Mr. Speaker, in wind power and other

resources. I can tell you, with the innovation and the creativity that we have

and some of the great, brilliant minds that we have in Newfoundland, there are a

lot of opportunities in clean, green energy growth that we see within what we

have in our province. We can actually do this as a population.

cannot be followers but we can be leaders in all of Canada. That is the reason

why this legislation today, we need to send a message, not only to this province

but to this country that we can be net zero by 2050. We can do it strategically

and we can do it with a plan, because we have the resources and we have the

people here to make sure that this plan is successful.

Mr.

Speaker, like everyone else in this Legislature, I want to make sure that we

leave this province to a generation who is able to protect its environment,

leave it in a better place, making sure that we will always be prudent and keep

in mind that we're always vigilant about the greenhouse gas emissions that we

put into our atmosphere.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank you very much for this opportunity. I thank this Legislature

and I ask you to unanimously support this resolution. Send the message that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to hear. Send the message that Canadians

want to hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

a topic and PMR, of course, that plays dear to all of us. Over this past three

months I had the opportunity to speak many different people about the

environment. There is, I guess, a silver lining within this pandemic cloud – and

the Member for Lake Melville alluded to it – that because people are not

travelling, because we're not conducting what we consider normal business, the

environment has been the benefactor. So it does show that this planet, this

mother earth that we all live on, can repair itself if given the chance.

When we

talk of climate change, this is not inevitable. We can reverse the effects of

our existence on this planet. I was at the municipal dump just checking out how

things are going down there – the regional dump, sorry – and one of the workers

– I was speaking with him, of course, at a safe social distance – and I said:

What are volumes doing at the dump these days? At that time dump volumes in

receipt of trash or garbage were down about 50 per cent. He said to me: It makes

you wonder what is the real pandemic on this earth. It's actually humans.

Within

our quest to become neutral or net zero by 2050, there are many challenges, but

within every challenge you will also find an opportunity – an opportunity to do

things better, to be creative, to be innovative and to rise. Just as the Premier

said – and it's a message that our party has been pushing over and over again –

it's time to be leaders. It's not time to do a jurisdictional scan; it's not

time to be a follower. It's time that we show what we're made of and how we can

be the leaders reaching to the net zero.

If we

are, indeed, going to be a big contributor to our country, our nation's goals of

reaching net zero, of doing better, of becoming more environmentally

sustainable, there's a cost that is going to come with that. If we have to bear

the cost for the rest of the country, we should be duly compensated, and that

brings us right to Muskrat Falls.

Muskrat

Falls is a nation-building project. Muskrat Falls is a green project that is

going to remove one of the top 10 single biggest producers of pollution and

greenhouse gases in North America. Many people don't realize it but that's our

own lovely Holyrood generating plant, who, for far too long, has been spewing

pollutants into the atmosphere, but we usually don't see it because it goes out

over the ocean, poisoning our atmosphere unbeknownst to us with, unfortunately,

I guess, the experience of the few local neighbours in the Holyrood area that

are constantly covered in soot and ash.

That's

an embarrassment to our beautiful province. That's an embarrassment to us as a

people. We have to do better. Yes, without a doubt, going to 2050, we need a

plan. We need a direct work plan, which I'm happy to accept and support the

amendment brought by the Member for St. John's Centre. This is not something for

a political stage. This is not one of those pie-in-the-sky targets. We have to

have a defined plan with small incremental steps towards that 2050.

Do you

know what? I'd love to see us get there a lot quicker, because, as I said, when

you talk about mother earth, and I don't mean to personify an inanimate object,

but I really believe that our earth is a living entity. She will only take so

much abuse before she starts to push back. That's what we're seeing in climate

change. That's what we're seeing in unpredictable weather patterns.

I know

the Member for Lake Melville commented on global warming as it's maybe a benefit

to gardening. I can guarantee you from a farmer's perspective, it hasn't been.

Because not only have we seen our temperatures vary, we've seen all probability

and predictability disappear. Our weather systems now are much more extreme. We

have times in Newfoundland – I typically say as a farmer, well, usually the rain

stops the end of June, early July and we won't get a drop of rain until the end

of August. As a child, I can never remember that happening, we always had

intermittent rain falls, but mark it down this summer and see, I bet you we're

going to have the hottest, driest summer on record.

Yes, we

have been able to grow different crops, largely it's due to the advancements in

agriculture and seed production. Our environment, as I said, has become more

volatile. You can no longer predict when you can plant. Two weeks ago, I was

planting in our fields, which is kind of unusually early, but not because of

this cold, wet rain, I'm off the fields again. So there's no prediction to it.

When people ask me what kind of a spring are we going to have, I always say,

well, the way the weather's going, I'll tell you in July. That's the only way to

really predict it.

As it

comes to agriculture, it does present a massive opportunity to reduce our

emissions, largely due to transportation. As many of you know, we produce very

little food on this Island and the majority of our food comes in by truck and

trailer from all over the country and all over the continent as far away as

Chile, actually. Even just recently I heard of stories of carrots coming all the

way from China. As we all know, the best place to grow carrots anywhere in the

world is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

It's going to take us a while

to get to the point where we are self-sufficient, even in carrots. So what we

have to do is we have to reduce the cost to the environment of transporting our

food and goods here to the province. One of those ways would be is we have to

look at an alternative means of transport versus our regional concept of going

through Port aux Basques. You can ship far more in a large boat more efficiently

than you can in multiple trailers. So the less time we can keep those trucks and

trailers on our roads, the better it is for the environment.

The

Member for Waterford Valley, the Minister of Finance, pointed out that the

bottles we have here on our table are not a locally produced product. So let's

look at this bottle and see what kind of imprint and carbon footprint this has

on our existence right here in the House of Assembly.

The

water was sourced in Grey County, Ontario. That's about 4,500 kilometers away or

thereabouts. This bottle of water was put on a truck – well, first of all, it

was packaged in a petrochemical-based bottle, in a plant that may have been

powered by either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Then it was shipped all the

way to St. John's, Newfoundland where it was redistributed to us.

Meanwhile, we have so much freshwater here in our own province. We have to put

measures in place – this could be part of it – that this bottle of water is

taxed environmentally so much that nobody would even consider looking at it.

They would go to the tap, turn on the tap and fill up a glass.

For

those who do not have safe drinking water, we have to make a more concentrated

effort to make sure that everybody in our province, both Newfoundland and

Labrador, have access to safe drinking water coming out of the tap. That would

make a huge difference. It will make a small difference, but many small

differences added together make that huge difference that we need.

It's

often quoted that we are only 1/65th of the emissions created in our country,

but can you imagine if we and 65 other entities managed to get to net zero by

2050? What a place we would all be at that point, all small initiatives that

make up a big effect.

speaking to our offshore oil, in order to eliminate the demand for oil, we have

to replace its need by alternative product. Until that happens, there will

always be a demand for oil. Our province can be leaders in developing those

alternatives but at the same time, back to the situation, we are in a challenge

because we are dependent on oil revenues as a large part of our fiscal reality

in this province.

We need

to make sure that our offshore oil production is the most environmentally

friendly and sustainable practice in the world. We need to market that. We need

to encourage that our own oil be refined here. We need to see that our own oil

is enhanced into more value-added products. The whole idea of not in my backyard

doesn't work because if there is a demand, it will be filled. It will be filled

by somewhere else who may not have such a conscience. That's a serious danger

that we are approaching.

The

federal government has to support our offshore oil industry much better than it

is. If not, the oil will be produced in other areas. Not only do we have to look

at conventional forms of sale and production, one of the big aspects that we are

missing in our offshore oil industry is the use of the natural gas that our

production platforms are either reinjecting into the ocean floor or burning off

in their flares. We have to do everything we possibly can in this province to

encourage the establishment of a liquefied nature gas industry. We should be the

hub of North American, European and Eastern centre for distribution of liquefied

natural gas.

While I

was initially very pleased with the residential home construction program, I

became a little bit disappointed that we did not see more of an emphasis put on

energy efficiency and home renovations. I believe that we need to put more of a

priority on making our existing facilities, our existing homes and our citizens

more energy efficient. While we all think that electricity will be a boundless

source once Muskrat Falls comes on, the reality is in our peak times of year we

will just barely have enough capacity to produce the electricity we need.

We're

all familiar with flattening the curve, but we need to flatten the curve of our

electrical use so that we have more electrical capacity to substantiate the

establishment of business, to establish the conversion from