PDF Version

(Day)

PDF Version

(Night)

April 22, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Burin -

Grand Bank, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl North, Placentia West - Bellevue

and Lake Melville.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

PIKE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Volunteer Week, and I would

like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers in the District of

Burin - Grand Bank. I am very proud and humbled today to recognize our volunteer

firefighters who play such a vital role in my district, and indeed the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are so grateful to our firefighters for

answering this calling as they put our lives and the lives of those we love

ahead of their own. Always on call, they live with the understanding that they

miss out on family moments and occasions to perform their duties.

Mr. Speaker, for their dedication, commitment and

courage, the service and sacrifices that they make, they are truly heroes in our

communities.

Thank you to those men, women and their families for

keeping our province safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to recognize Pasadena author Nellie

Strowbridge, who recently published her latest book. This new book is a sequel

to her bestselling novel Catherine Snow ,

which is based on true events from the history of this province. The first book

tells the story of Catherine Snow, a woman from Salmon Cove who was accused and

convicted of complicity in the murder of her husband in 1830.

Nellie Strowbridge's latest book,

The Hanged Woman's Daughter , tells the story of Bridget Snow, the

oldest daughter of Catherine Snow, and picks up the story after Catherine's

death. While the first book has been described by the author as a work of

creative non-fiction, this most recent book also tries to adhere closely as

possible to what was known about the life of her daughter.

The author says she writes books on subjects that

inspire her and hopes it will cause people to think about things in a different

way.

In conclusion, I ask all Members of the House of

Assembly to join me in recognizing the work of author Nellie Strowbridge, and

other writers like her, who contribute to our understanding of our history and

culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

STOYLES:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The District of Mount Pearl North is a showcase for

many successful businesses. Today, I am highlighting just one.

Junior Reid took a chance 30 years ago by starting Reid

Music. Music is Junior's life, a dream come true for him. The business is the

cornerstone to the community.

Mr. Reid is a long-time volunteer with the City of

Mount Pearl, having volunteered with the Frosty Festival for well over 30 years.

He also judged many awards that have focus on youth in our community. He has

also played music for many senior events.

The family business continues to support Mount Pearl

organizations by sponsoring events that have helped to shape our community. Reid

Music started out in one room, but after four years, his business grew to the

point that he moved to a location at 835 Topsail Road, having expanded several

more times at the same location.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing

congratulations to Junior and Gina Reid of Reid Music for over 30 years in

business.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit in this hon. Chamber today to express my deep

appreciation for the volunteer firefighters that serve to protect the

communities of our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

Placentia West - Bellevue has a total of 16 volunteer

fire departments, each made up of brave and selfless men and women whose goal is

to ensure the safety of the residents in their communities and travelling

public.

The saying firefighters save more than homes; they save

hearts, memories and dreams is a great explanation of the impact a firefighter

can have on one's life.

Just within the last few weeks, the Southern Harbour

Volunteer Fire Department accepted two new recruits, Christopher Penny and Brad

Peach, into the ranks of their brigade. Congratulations, gentlemen, for stepping

up to serve your community, neighbours and visitors.

I invite all Members of this hon. House to join me in

showing our gratitude for those who serve with a volunteer fire department, not

only in Placentia West - Bellevue, but throughout this beautiful place we call

home, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to recognize the achievements of Inuit

artists from Labrador at the exciting INUA exhibition in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Opened in March and comprising 8,000 square feet, INUA is the single largest

gallery space for Inuit art.

Among the 90 artists invited to participate from

Canada, Alaska and Greenland are several of Labrador's finest, including two

from Lake Melville. Shirley Moorhouse of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is known for her

mixed-media wall hangings that combine traditional and modern elements to create

beautiful artwork. Michael Massie is a sculptor, also from Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, who incorporates elements of traditional life in Labrador.

Three other respected artists from Nunatsiavut, Eldred

Allen, Glenn Gear and Bronson Jacque, also have profiled their work in various

media. The exhibition is attracting national and circumpolar attention.

Heather Igloliorte, one of the co-curators also from

Happy Valley -Goose Bay said: “Together these artworks celebrate our past,

survey the present and speak to an exciting future for Inuit art.”

Congratulations to these artists and curators for

assembling this exciting showcase for all to enjoy and appreciate.

Nakummek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize April 22 as Earth Day. This

year's theme is Restore Our Planet.

As our climate changes, we are working to preserve our

environment, coastal and protected areas, and to reduce waste in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We all can play a

part in protecting our land, air and our waters

while preserving spaces that we cherish in our communities.

I just came from visiting St. Paul's Junior High School

who were doing a community cleanup in honour of Earth Day.

Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward with

innovative technologies and initiatives in our province to adapt to the effects

of climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to

the net-zero emissions by 2050 and we have taken action on 43 of the 45 items in

our Climate Change Action Plan. Our plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

stimulate clean innovation and growth, and build resiliency to climate change

impacts.

We were pleased to see increased investment in the

federal budget for the green economy to support our efforts here in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Our government has announced six programs for energy efficiency

and fuel switching. By 2030, these programs are anticipated to deliver 830,000

tons of greenhouse gas reductions.

We are also working to convert schools and municipal

and provincial public buildings from oil heat to electric heat and to improve

energy efficiency.

On Earth Day and every day, we can all be environmental

stewards. We share a responsibility to protect our environment for future

generations by making greener choices each and every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join with the minister to recognize Earth Day in our

province. Not only today but every day we need to acknowledge the dangerous

impacts our planet is facing due to climate change. The Innu and Inuit of

Northern Labrador are already living with the impacts of climate change and our

province needs to listen and learn. Climate change is here and if steps are not

taken our very way of life is threatened.

This government talks on the progress they are making

on fighting climate change, and every action does, indeed, help, but they need

to do more. Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power now for almost six

years and in those six years they have yet to clearly outline specific

CO2-equivalent reduction targets. We need to hear from this government on what

actions they are taking while also qualifying the reductions of these actions.

Until this government produces a plan, which quantifies

the reduction in CO2 equivalence, clearly outlining how the province will meet

its Paris climate targets, they are doing the people of our province a

disservice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement and join him in recognizing Earth Day and the need for all of us to be

environmental stewards.

However, lofty sentiments do ring hollow when

government also speaks of clean oil, subsidizes wealthy oil companies, faces

judicial challenges for failing to perform proper environmental assessment of

aquaculture projects, undermined the work of WERAC and, most recently, breaks

its own rules in allowing an ATV trail through the protected Main River

watershed.

We need to do better.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

BYRNE:

Mr.

Speaker, getting people back to work is crucial for the province's post-pandemic

economic recovery. Part of that means making sure that we provide students with

opportunities to enter the workforce and for businesses to harness the talents

of students to assist them in that process.

In response to the unique challenges created by

COVID-19, this year our government increased funding and flexibility for student

employment programs. This change will help create over 600 additional jobs,

securing summer employment for some 1,600 post-secondary and high school

students in our province.

With a one-time increase to the Workforce Development

Agreement, funding for this year is set at over $3.7 million, which is up from

$2.1 million last year.

As a result, we are increasing wage supports for the

private sector employers. They are now eligible to receive a wage subsidy of up

to 75 per cent of the student's hourly wage, to a maximum of $12.50 per hour.

This is up from a 50 per cent wage subsidy in past years. In addition, our

not-for-profit organizations continue to be funded at 100 per cent, to the same

maximum of $12.50 per hour.

This year, we are also expanding eligibility to include

part-time employment. Under the previous rules, all summer employment must be

full-time, a minimum of 25 hours per week. As we know, students are engaged in

part-time studies, and part-time employment is important.

Mr. Speaker, the valuable experience high school and

post-secondary students gain from the summer jobs will help them pursue their

chosen careers, right here at home.

These enhanced employment programs provide working and

learning opportunities, while bringing the energy and enthusiasm of students to

businesses and to not-for-profit organizations who are working towards economic

recovery. I encourage all employers in our province, in communities throughout

the entire province, to apply online before the deadline of May 11 this year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join the minister in recognizing the importance of

getting more students to work with enhanced employment programs here in this

province.

Students have been disproportionately affected during

the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to employment. We need to be steadfast in

providing our young people with opportunities: opportunities to obtain

education, to live here, to work here and to remain here. An increase in funding

to create 600 additional jobs for students in our province is very welcome news.

Our young people are one of the most treasured resources. Let's get to work to

ensure they have a bright future right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement and I applaud a program which provides students with opportunities to

enter the workforce, and helps our province recover from the pandemic.

However, as most of us know, the post-pandemic economy

is proving to be very expensive, especially for those on fixed income and those

earning a minimum wage and for our students. Now is the time, I believe, to act

boldly and implement a $15-per-hour minimum wage for our students and our other

minimum wage workers. Our students and our workers are worth that investment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Other statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous

Affairs and Reconciliation.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak in this hon. House today to

recognize April 18 to 24 as National Volunteer Week.

This year's theme – The Value of One, The Power of Many

– reflects the inspiring acts of kindness by each individual volunteer

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the impact they have when working

toward a common goal.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen how volunteers make a

difference in our province, especially during this past year as we have faced

the challenges of COVID-19. The individual and collective efforts they have put

forth during the pandemic are phenomenal and I commend all of them for the

outstanding contributions they continue to make for the benefit of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Volunteering also enriches our lives by helping us

connect with and learn from others leading to personal and professional growth.

I would like to thank the Community Sector Council of Newfoundland and Labrador

who have been fostering volunteerism and cultivating leadership since 1976. I

might be remiss if I didn't thank them for also highlighting the volunteers in

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair this year, Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to do with

it, but it was lovely to see.

Their vision is for an inclusive society, which

supports individuals, families and communities and our government shares this

vision wholeheartedly. On Tuesday, the Premier and Minister of Children, Seniors

and Social Development and Minister Responsible for the Community Sector signed

a proclamation to recognize this week and the incredible volunteers who make our

province strong and vibrant.

I invite all Members of this House to join me in

celebrating our province's wonderful volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. I join with the minister in recognizing the thousands of volunteers

in our province and the impact it has on the many organizations and groups

meeting their goals.

In each and every community there are organizations,

fire brigades, church groups, seniors groups, councils and many others that

provide valued leadership. Volunteers are a major asset for success.

Our kids develop skills because of volunteers and it

leads to an inclusive society. Support for our children, youth, adult, seniors

and their very different needs are made possible by volunteers. During this

pandemic it's important we recognize all volunteers that have been risking their

own health to ensure the safety of others.

It would be remiss of me to not recognize the many

volunteers that work countless hours to ensure all of our election to this

office to allow us all to work on behalf of the people of this great province we

call home, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. I can say from personal experience that my own district has benefited

enormously from the contributions of volunteers. Without their tireless efforts,

communities across this province would be a much less vibrant and pleasant place

to live.

Though it often goes without recognition, our

volunteers actually provide a wide range of social services. Unfortunately,

we've come to this situation because successive governments have failed to

address the shortcomings of our social support systems.

We understand the hard work of these volunteers and we

thank every one of them in this province that stepped up to the plate in

supporting our neighbours when the systems have failed them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Other statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Media reports today have shed a light on the failure of

the government to adequately provide search and rescue helicopter services for

the Northeast Avalon, which have been absent for over a year. Last month,

Transportation officials said they were working with St. John's Regional Fire

Department to address this issue. Now we learn this is not correct.

I ask the Premier: Who is telling the truth on this

critical matter of public safety?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.

First, let me pass my condolences on behalf of the

province and on behalf of this House, I think, to the life that was lost, or

certainly seems to be at this particular moment in time. Our thoughts and

prayers are with the family during this tough time.

As it pertains to what has actually happened with

respect to the negotiations between the City of St. John's, the firefighters and

the government, we're certainly looking at everything right now. As I understand

it, there was a helicopter contract in place.

There is certainly space to improve on where we are,

and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety is certainly looking at that right

now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The chief of the St. John's Regional Fire Department

said she had not heard from provincial officials since October of last year.

Again, these words may mean something that the Premier

just said, but why is this critical issue allowed to go on for so long? Who is

looking into this?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to send my thoughts and prayers to the

family who is going through a very difficult time right now. As we all know, we

live in a province with oceans surrounding us. It has given us a lot, but it has

taken a lot as well. I hope the family can get through the next few days and

what the future holds for them.

I do want to reassure, as the Minister of Justice and

Public Safety, that the search and rescue services are available on the

Northeast Avalon and they are available throughout the province.

I hope that the Member opposite isn't conflating the

issues here for political purposes. The issue with the St. John's Regional Fire

Department is completely different from the issue that arose last night. Last

night, after this incident was reported to the RNC, marine support was requested

and it was provided. Extra support was offered in the form of air support, and

that was provided as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's concerning for a comment like that to come from

across the way. My colleague from Cape St. Francis is the Member representing

that area and is quite familiar with that area and a former Member who was from

Flatrock. These are two separate stories, if you read the news they came out in

two separate issues.

This happened to be coincidental and maybe it's timely,

who knows, but it's a very unfortunate situation. But never tie this to me

playing politics with someone's lives. I take great offence to that and I think

anyone listening should feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, in describing the seriousness of the

situation, the current deputy chief of the RNC described the situation as life

and death. Again, these are words of experienced professionals.

Why has the government sat idly by for months while

companies like Cougar have aircraft ready, willing and able?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I was advised of this tragic event last night, one

of the first things I did was reach out to the Member for Cape St. Francis and

we did have a conversation this morning because I do understand he is the Member

for that area and I wanted him to be aware of it. I do understand he was there

last night on the scene and I thank him for that. He was there again this

morning. Again, I'm happy to reach across the isle and work with everybody,

especially the Members that are specific to that area.

I do want to reassure everyone that there is search and

rescue available in this province. The issues that were put forward by the

letter from the St. John's Regional Fire Department are separate, distinct and

very discreet. We will work with the St. John's Regional Fire Department and the

city going forward, my department as well as the Department of Transportation

and Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out, it's also the RNC that made complaints,

not just the fire department. Also, out of the frustration with the failure to

act, Mayors Breen, Aker and Bobbett wrote the Premier on March 17 indicating

that contrary to government's statements to the media, there have not been any

communications and there were no clear protocols in place.

Again, I ask the Premier: Why is life and safety of the

public been put at risk for so long?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The letter was received, it was sent to the Premier's

office and there was a letter that was sent back to them to respond to it.

Again, that's something that we're going to be working with them going forward,

but it is a very specific and discreet issue related to rope teams at the St.

John's Regional Fire Department. Last night, was not an issue where rope teams

were requested. The appropriate services were requested by the RNC and they were

provided.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see the Minister of Justice

finally acknowledge there were issues with this election despite his difficulty

in seeing what's obvious to everyone in the province. He has now taken the lead

of the All-Party Committee but has not stated an independent investigator will

be called in to independently review the election.

I ask the minister: Do you agree an independent

investigator should be called in to review the election?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated yesterday here in this House, there is an

independent investigator, actually four, they're called Supreme Court judges.

They will do an independent review of the legalities around the 2021 election.

I look forward to Members of the opposite side of this

House to join in the All-Party Committee to review the facts of the 2021

election, as we move forward to modernize the Elections Act here in this

province to provide the most access to voters in Newfoundland and Labrador with

the ability to make it as easy as possible for them to vote in the next election

and future elections.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not off to a good start if

he does not recognize the importance and necessity of having an independent,

impartial, external review of this election.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is an Officer

of the House of the Assembly, whose appointment is voted on by this hon. House.

It is therefore the power of this House of Assembly to suspend the Chief

Electoral Officer while the review –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

– of the election takes place, as his conduct is

subject to the review.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Do you believe it is

inappropriate for someone under investigation to be part of their own

investigation?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows, there are court cases

ongoing at Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the CEO that she

speaks of is a named individual in that. So what I think is appropriate is for

the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of this province to not

interfere with ongoing court matters in this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Justice understands

the power of the House of Assembly to suspend the CEO while the review of the

election takes place. That is the venue and the proper form for that to be done.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, Bruce Chaulk asked for an

extended election, which the Premier ignored. On January 15, the federal

government issued modeling to show a two-month spike in COVID-19 cases across

the country, which the Premier also ignored. If the Liberals ignored warning

signs leading into this election, why should the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador trust the Liberals to lead this election review?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

HOGAN:

think the Premier has answered that question on numerous occasions. Again, we

are looking forward to doing the review to modernize the Elections Act. I am

very pleased that the Premier has tasked me with that. Again, we have tasked an

All-Party Committee to get involved with that as well, and we hope that all the

Members are happy with that, seeing as that they asked for it yesterday, and

satisfied with the first step towards fulfilling this task and the mandate that

the Premier has given me.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were shocked to recently learn that successive

premiers had secret talks about storing toxic nuclear waste in Labrador. Records

recently released showed that the former Premier Ball and current Premier Furey

had talks with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, why is government satisfied to have

Labrador as an environmentally friendly battery for electricity for North

America on one hand, but serve as a toxic dump on the other hand?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that question.

I welcome the opportunity to clarify. Perhaps I wasn't

clear in the media. Absolutely not on my watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Secret talks without consultation, Mr. Speaker, we have to question what he

says.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government has spoken out

about the lack of legally required consultation on this project. Labrador has a

sad history of large-scale environmental pollution, abandoned and contaminated

military sites and, recently, the failure to mitigate methylmercury from Muskrat

Falls.

Why is the Premier ignoring clearly defined legal

rights and repeating past failures to consult Labradorians, especially

Indigenous groups? If he is having talks, he should be consulting Indigenous

people and Labrador's people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say again: Absolutely not on my watch.

There is no consultation because there are no

discussions – frankly, plain and simple. I don't know how to be anymore frank

than that. Not on my watch. Labrador is nobody's dumping ground and that's why

there were no consultations because it's not even being entertained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The original terms or the Greene report call for an

interim report to be delivered by February 28 and the final report due by April

30. Yesterday the minister said it could be received a few days or a few weeks

following April 30.

Considering the Premier has had discussions with Dame

Greene, either the Premier has changed the Terms of Reference or Dame Greene is

ignoring them, which is it?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Moya Greene report, which is made up and comprised

of – the task force is comprised of some incredibly strong, intelligent and

gifted Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They're going to give us the

information that they have found, that they have discovered, that they have

reviewed and that they have consulted with people around the province. They're

going to give that to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the Premier has indicated on multiple times –

multiple times – that we will be consulting with people, we'll have a large

discussion with people and we'll debate it and review it in this House of

Assembly. The Premier is committed to that, Mr. Speaker.

I mean, certainly, this is not going to be delayed as

the Muskrat Falls reports, and Muskrat Falls was delayed. We're certainly going

to look forward to having good, open consultations and discussions when we

receive the report in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, the people of the province deserve transparency on the Greene report,

and the government keeps changing its mind on when it's going to be received,

whether it's an interim report, a final report.

They pushed back the release of the Greene report until

after the election and now they seem determined to push it out until after the

budget.

So I'd ask the minister: Why or what are you hiding?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite is putting out false information. It is simply not

true. As everyone in this province knows, we were in lockdown due to COVID.

There has been some delay in getting the interim report. I don't expect there'll

be any delay in getting the final report. It's expected to be received within

the next couple of weeks. We all know that – all know that.

We have said quite clearly, quite sincerely and quite

fulsome –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

COADY:

know they are chirping across the hall. I can hear them say this. But we have

been very clear. We have asked very great Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

consult with others to bring forward a plan to help us with the financial mess

that the Members opposite were responsible for creating.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, we still don't know whether we're getting an interim report or a final

report and sometime after April 30.

So again I ask the minister: Can you confirm whether

it's an interim report or a final report?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

COADY:

can still hear them chirping over there, Mr. Speaker; it's disrespectful.

We have good, solid Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

looking at how to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is strong, vibrant

and self-sustaining into the future. I can tell you they're looking at an awful

mess left behind by the Progressive Conservative government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

COADY:

Just think about this, Mr. Speaker. We have to find almost $600 million a year

just on rate mitigation, let alone paying for Muskrat Falls. Now we have this

stellar group of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

COADY:

The

Members opposite are being disrespectful.

I can say to you that I understand from Moya Greene and

her team that the report will be received in due course within the next number

of weeks and we'll be consulting on that.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a great example of respect yesterday afternoon,

I thought, led by the Opposition, I have to say.

Yesterday in this House, the minister said, “There is a

denture program. It supplies a set on a regular basis at the request of the

individual and a denturist.” However, what he failed to note is that is limited

to only individuals on the Foundation Plan of the NLPDP and only provides

standard dentures once every eight years.

Imagine having to wait eight years to properly eat a

meal. This program, as slashed by the Liberals in 2016, fails our seniors.

I ask the minister: Will you do the right thing and

reinstate the full Adult Dental Program in this province?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

We have a modest number of people for whom we provide

benefits, and dental care is one of those. We are compatible in terms of our

range of services with five other jurisdictions and better than three.

I have repeatedly said in this House that we are

constrained by our fiscal envelope. As that solves itself over the course of the

coming mandate, as we deal with the financial issues that we inherited back in

2016 and are still plaguing us, then we may be able to do more. I look forward

to being able to present those to the House in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that information.

This week is Information Management Week and it has

come to the attention of the Official Opposition that there have been 86

separate data breaches within the Department of Digital Government and Service

NL in the last three years alone.

I ask the minister: Why is the Liberal government

failing to protect the private information of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Information management is incredibly important. It's

important for all public servants; it's important for private organizations as

well. We certainly take any data breach very seriously. I'm not aware of that

number. I'll certainly look into that for the Member.

We take the information of the residents of this

province extremely seriously. We have a comprehensive cybersecurity program in

place to prevent attacks. I would encourage all Members and all government

employees to be really mindful about the emails they get, the attachments they

open and the links they click on. Protecting our data is everyone's

responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Exploits.

FORSEY:

October 1, 2020, WERAC submitted a proposal to government for approval. Six

months later now have passed.

I ask the minister: What is the status of this report?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for the question.

I'm all caught up here in my earpiece. It's not functional down in this end, but

thank you very much.

This being Volunteer Week, I'd like to say thank you to

the WERAC volunteer group that does some great work in our community. We're in

the process of cluing up the consultations in that area. I look forward to them

presenting that report and their findings of what they've heard in the near

future.

Thank you very much for the question. Very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Safety is extremely important for our vehicles on our

highways throughout the province; in particular, on the Burin Peninsula, we have

treacherous winter weather. Total whiteouts are a common occurrence on the Burin

Peninsula.

Will the government commit to upgrading cell services

on the Burin Peninsula highway for not only Fire and Emergency Services, but for

the general public?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite. I

think it's a concern that a lot of us share, including myself, especially all

over rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I can say is that we have made great strides over

the past few years. Phase I of the cell service program is now complete. I

believe I spoke in the House about Phase II, which has been announced and we are

working through.

What I can say is, number one, we know that the federal

government has invested another further billion dollars on Monday in the budget

to go towards broadband and connectivity, which I think can be applied towards

this. What I will also say is that we are very bullish on the idea of

connectivity in this province, whether it is broadband, whether it is cell

service. The reality, as we all know, especially in a post-COVID world, is that

we need more connectivity for safety reasons, for social reasons and for

economic reasons.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

With that being said, the program that's in place, Minister, is cost shared and

is applied for by towns. I'm just wondering who would be applying for the Burin

Peninsula highway?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, that's one of the challenges that we face is

that we have a terrific number of kilometres of highway; in fact, 10,000

kilometres of highway. A number of those kilometres are in areas – I look at the

Member for down in Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the same as myself, we have long

stretches and it's difficult. The reality is should government just invest in

long stretches of highway just on its own?

Right now, I think we have a number of challenges with

communities and other populated areas that we need to work on, but I do share

the concern for the Member. What I will say is it's a concern that we're working

on, but it requires partnerships. It requires partnerships with our federal

government; it requires partnerships with the providers, as well as

municipalities and citizens. I think we all have a role to play in ensuring that

we have that coverage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have concerns

with the length of time it takes to get a hearing test in this province,

specifically seniors. Western Health's own website states wait times are very

lengthy for routine referrals, which acknowledges the problem quite clearly.

I ask the minister: What is the average wait time for a

hearing test in our province and what is being done to reduce the wait times?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware of challenges with recruitment of

audiologists. We, through our processes in the department, had a request for

proposals to go out to seek extra audiological support from the private sector.

That was held up as a result of some issues with the RFP. That RFP will be going

out again in the near future.

It will produce a significant reduction in the number

of people waiting and the time they wait. I don't actually have the accurate

figures in front of me, but I can certainly go and get them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

I'd

say to the minister that's little consolation to a senior who can't hear

anything for 12 or 14 months. A reduction in the services is creating great

problems and being able to enable these seniors to go to a private clinic or

elsewhere to get a test would certainly reduce the backlog for infants and other

people that need it.

I'll ask the minister again: Can you give us a time

frame when public or private entities will be able to do these tests?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

The

short answer to that is no. I can tell him that whatever date I gave him today

would be wrong simply because I don't have complete control over the process. It

depends on who responds to the RFP and whether or not they fit within the

parameters and are eligible and those kind of things.

It is a priority, the Member opposite is quite correct.

It has been a challenge to recruit the skills that we need. One of the other

directions we're taking is to try and train these people in-house in the

province, because in general in health we know that if we train these folk and

these skills locally, we keep them. That's another line of approach, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been contacted by an interim physiotherapist

who advises that there's a backlog of more than 3,000 candidates who have been

waiting over a year to challenge the national exam required to become a licensed

physiotherapist.

Is the minister aware of this issue? What is he going

to do to address the shortage of licensed physiotherapists in the province?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we have been made aware of this situation.

Unfortunately, physiotherapy is a self-regulating profession and the remedies

are outside our immediate control.

What I can say is we are aware that people who have

passed the local exams but not yet passed their national certifying exams are

able to practice in controlled environments. We are working to see what options

exist through their national body, Mr. Speaker, to speed the process up. We are

aware of it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail -Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was pleased to hear in the news this week from the

Minister of Health that we have a significant boost in the supply of vaccines,

and that he will be asking pharmacists to assist in giving those inoculations.

I ask the minister: What assurance can he give that all

pharmacists will be vaccinated in time to also give the vaccinations?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We are expecting a large influx of vaccine in May.

Exactly when, we're not sure, but it could be in the second half. We have an

open call for Phase 2 coming this week.

As far as pharmacists are concerned, the regional

health authorities have been working with PANL, the Pharmacists' Association, to

identify pharmacists within their boundaries to make sure that they have

received a vaccine prior to the arrival of this big surplus.

It's a work in progress, I don't have an update on

where we are with that. Certainly, I can go back to PANL and the RHAs and ask

for that. Happy to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my short time here in this House, I've asked this

question to a couple of different ministers. Route 60 through Topsail -

Paradise, through Topsail in my district, is pitted with potholes, it has

erosion of the shoulders and it presents safety issues for drivers and

pedestrians.

I ask the current minister responsible: What commitment

will he give to the residents of Topsail - Paradise that this road will be

looked at in the very near future?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that question.

I will say, that presentation in terms of potholes,

it's a reality in a lot of areas of this province. But as I committed to you on

a side conversation, I'll go have a look at it with you, I'll be glad to do so

and I look forward to that. So, yeah, I have no other commitments than that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard many promises of public consultation on the

Premier's Economic Recovery task force report, or the Greene report.

Will the Premier outline, please, the plans for the

consultation process?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are looking at a combination and, frankly, the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is going to lead this, but

we're happy to reach across the aisle and work with Members opposite to

facilitate the public consultation.

As I said many times, every Newfoundlander will have a

chance to have their say on the Greene report as we develop strategies moving

forward to create sustainable opportunities for families here in this province,

Mr. Speaker. We look forward to engaging Newfoundlanders with many different

platforms, including public consultations in town halls, should COVID

restrictions apply and allow. We would also look at doing things like online

portals and telephone consultations, if required, where online would be an issue

to ensure that we give every Newfoundlander the ability to have a say on this

report when they want.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador West is in the midst of a housing

crisis, today low-income individuals have been evicted from units as they are

being sold off to highest bidder. There are currently more families on the list

than NL Housing units in Labrador West. With no emergency shelter in the region,

I have repeatedly warned previous ministers and NL Housing of this upcoming

situation.

Why did this government allow the situation to happen?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador

Affairs.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for the question. I was

actually in Housing at the time, in the spring of '19, when we signed a $270

million – the most historic, largest agreement in our history between the feds

and the province for Housing. That nine-year agreement, we're going to be

rolling out three, three-year action plans.

As I outlined in this hon. House, maybe earlier this

week, Mr. Speaker, we have made tremendous strides. We have specific targets in

that three-year action plan to expand, to preserve. We do have some challenges.

We have a housing stock that is 50 or 60 years old, Mr. Speaker. We have a

demand, as our families have shrunk, for one and two bedroom and we have many

larger.

Right now, in Labrador West, we have – actually the job

has started, I misspoke earlier and said the job was starting on those units the

end of May. It has started and we expect it to be clued up by the 27th of May.

SPEAKER:

Your time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Mr.

Speaker, the people of Labrador West are done hearing this phoned-in rhetoric

from this government. We have families and children homeless in Labrador West;

kicked out of houses because the market is high. They are living on the streets.

Again, I ask why this government ignored warnings from

the people of the district, from people from Labrador causing families to be

living on the streets because they continued to ignore the realities we face in

Labrador.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador

Affairs.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not rhetoric when we have gone out – 10 units –

and we have brought in an external contractor. It has been awarded, the

contractor is onsite; they has actually started work on five of the units.

That's not words, that's action, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we've been doing

in the area of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing: has been action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

DEMPSTER:

With regard to five other units, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be doing those

in-house. There are nine units that remain sitting in Lab West that require a

major, major overhaul. Those are being looked at, Mr. Speaker. I believe we've

made tremendous strides towards addressing the housing issues, right now,

currently, in Labrador West.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Time for a quick question, no

preamble, please.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in response to the fact that cohorts are not

being maintained during lunch-hour breaks, five junior high schools in the St.

John's metro area are being asked to decide on condensing the instructional day

to approximately five hours, which will mean that the five schools will, because

they have busing schedules, have to accommodate this change and will mean

confining students to their classroom for five straight hours.

SPEAKER:

Get

to your question, please.

DINN:

ask the Minister of Education to explain how this is conducive to effective

learning and to the mental and physical health of these school communities.

SPEAKER:

Time for a quick response.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've all seen the pictures of children not cohorting

at lunch hours. I believe the Member across himself has raised this as a

concern. We can control what we can control, Mr. Speaker, and that is when the

students are inside of school, we can control the cohorts.

One of the ways we can help reduce the crowding at

lunchtimes, Mr. Speaker, is to shorten the lunch break and provide an earlier

release for the end of the day.

Members of the union that you were former leader of,

Mr. Speaker, in a number of these schools have accepted that proposal by the

way to protect the students when not in the jurisdiction of the school by

eliminating the crowding outside during lunch hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER:

do have a couple.

In accordance with

section 105 of the

Access to Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, 2015 and

section 82 of the

Personal Health Information Act , I am

pleased to submit for tabling the 2019-2020 Annual Report for the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Secondly, pursuant to

section 43 of the

Citizens' Representative Act , I am

pleased to table the Citizens' Representative Annual Digest for 2019-2020.

Any other tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to provide some additional

information to the question the Member raised.

In terms of the 87 over three years, that was manual

data breaches. When we look at Motor Registration Division, in particular, we do

three million transactions a year. That was 87 times, for example, an employee

made a manual mistake and they emailed the document to the wrong email address,

for example. Maybe they mistyped it or something.

Data breaches are very serious; we take it very

seriously. Those are training opportunities. We look at performance management

then. But I just want to reassure the general public that we're not aware of any

data breaches or anything like that, or security breaches. These were manual

errors, 87 over three years, of three million transactions, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the Member for Torngat Mountains question yesterday

about the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank you.

LOVELESS:

Thank you again for your protection there, Mr. Speaker.

It's an important question and it's an important

answer. There was $200,000 for a pre-feasibility study announced in

Budget 2020 . That will be going ahead.

I don't have a date to give you, but it will be issued this year and we intend

to get it done, absolutely.

SPEAKER:

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a little bit more time today.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that fair electricity

rates be provided to the Torngat Mountains' residents in the Northern Labrador

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

The rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are

cost prohibitive to using electric heat; therefore, rates are cost prohibitive

to adequately heating their homes. The rationale for this petition is to bring

electricity rates more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake

Melville region pay.

For the first thousand kilowatt hours, Torngat

Mountains' residents are charged the same rate as our neighbouring residents of

Lake Melville region. However, above the ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours,

Torngat Mountains' residents then pay six times the rate that Lake Melville

residents pay, jumping up to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The

thousand-kilowatt-hour ceiling prevents many residents from being able to afford

to heat their homes with electric heat. Low-income families and households that

don't have the manpower to haul wood are the greatest impacted.

Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating

expensive repairs for frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated

houses also create social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We

strongly believe that changes to electricity rates need to be made for the

northern residents of Torngat Mountains.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the lifeline block to 3,500

kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy to the

electricity bills of Northern Labrador residents of the Torngat Mountains

region.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple minutes left to speak on

this petition. Greatly impacted are our seniors, our elders, because they don't

have the ability to haul wood. If they do have relatives that can haul wood for

them, they still have to actually bring it in and put it in the stove, which

causes a lot of problems. People with health issues and age-related issues, they

don't have that option. Also, women, single women, single families are greatest

impacted as well.

This is a good petition and it would go a long way to

help people in my district. I presented this several time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The level of chatter is getting pretty high. I can't

hear the speaker.

EVANS:

presented this petition several times now and I was wondering why there is no

interest in increasing the lifeline block that would make life so much easier

for women, mothers, our seniors and our elders.

There is talk going around, and many are hearing that

Labrador electricity rates are being looked at and there are plans to increase

Labrador electricity rates, so we are wondering know: Is that why the Premier

and this government will not consider increasing the lifeline block to 3,500

kilowatt hours for North Coast residents, making life so much more easier and

convenient for single families, our elders and our most vulnerable?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a quick moment to respond to the

petition that was just put in there. Obviously this an issue that we are aware

of. We are aware of the petition for a 3,500-kilowatt-hour lifeline block as

opposed to the thousand right now. I could get into a lot of discussion about

the rural deficit; the fact is that the cost to provide this is extraordinary.

We could talk about the difference of rates, but what I

would like to say to the Member, just about the last part of the petition,

talking about Labrador electricity rates are being looked at: Right now,

electricity rates all over this province are being looked at, because we have to

grapple with Muskrat Falls coming on stream and the money that we are going to

need to mitigate those rates so that everybody in this province – every citizen

– is not frozen out of their homes. That is the reality here.

I share the concern that the Member brings, but every

single citizen is worried about the albatross that is Muskrat Falls and the

hundreds of millions of dollars that will be required on an annual basis to

mitigate those costs to keep them at the level that we have committed to, which,

I would note, we are not backing away from.

On that note, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the background to this petition is as

follows:

WHEREAS individual residents, municipal leaders,

including the Conception Bay North Joint Council, have spoken to the deplorable

road conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and

WHEREAS the district is made up of many smaller

communities and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers,

South River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons. Those places in particular

have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS these roads see high-volume traffic flows every

day and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many

washed-out areas along the way;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the necessary steps

to repair and repave these important roadways to ensure the safety of the

driving public who use them on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate the

current Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I'd also like to thank

his predecessor, who, I believe and I want to state, has been very positive, and

I want to give credit where it's due: He was instrumental in assisting in the

work and making sure that brush cutting was done in the District of Harbour

Main. The people of the District of Harbour Main appreciate that and the fact

that he recognized the serious safety issues that were at play.

I'm asking the current minister to look at that same

safety issue which is definitely evident with respect to the roads in the

Harbour Main District. Throughout the election campaign, for example, other than

COVID and the fact that we were having the election as we were and with all of

the problems with that, the next biggest issue that I faced was people

responding to the conditions of the road and how really deplorable they were.

Not only were they frustrated though; they were

outraged that there's no action. They're concerned about safety issues. There

are hazards that are caused by these roads. Large potholes that are difficult to

avoid, swerving and severe rutting place people in jeopardy.

I'd ask the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure to recognize this. This is not only the people in the district

but all of the people who have to travel on these roads. The frustration level

is high; people are upset. Please respond to the issues, especially with respect

to Upper Gullies to Holyrood, really serious problems. South River to North

River and Roaches Line, those are the three key ones that really need to be

addressed. We ask the Minister of Transportation to make a commitment and we

call on you to respond and to give us some sense of optimism that these roads

will be repaired, if not paved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today.

As the Trans-Labrador Highway continues to be

developed, there is an immediate need for basic roadside services within the

extensive distances between communities. The two greatest unserviced sections

are from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay at 288 kilometres, and from

Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Port Hope Simpson at 405 kilometres. There are no

washrooms or emergency services over these distances. Frankly, Mr. Speaker,

there is really nothing there. Accidents, mechanical breakdowns or basic

conveniences have been challenging and even life-threatening to deal with.

While the province and their contractors operate depots

at Cache River, Crooks Lake and Cartwright Junction, these facilities are not

available to the travelling public. However, at each of these locations,

stand-alone and independently operated facilities could be established by the

private sector.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to call for

expressions of interest to provide essential services at these isolated

locations on the Trans-Labrador Highway as soon as possible.

Very timely today, Mr. Speaker, because we have had a

couple of questions dealing about the long distances between communities. Well,

perhaps we set the record there on that. It's about a four- to five-hour drive

if you're making good time between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Port Hope Simpson

across Route 510.

While we are working on getting the asphalt down, it is

quite a state in terms of – if there are any reasons you have to stop, you are

on your own, and that would be from washrooms – forget communications, as the

minister alluded to earlier in that challenge, and certainly any other

convenience or mechanical repair. You are on your own. We have, as a province,

provided in the past satellite phones, which drivers were able to pick up and

then drop off if and when they successfully completed their journey across the

Trans-Labrador Highway. It is improving. We have a long ways to go.

I can just ask anyone in this room to think about what

it would be like to leave St. John's, drive five hours west and then hope that

you didn't have to stop for anything, because that really is the situation

facing anyone having to make that distance.

The responsibility of the contractors is to fix the

highways. I think it was 2017, maybe 2016. I'm just trying to recall. We had a

serious washout on Route 510, about an hour and a half outside of Goose Bay.

Some friends of mine were involved in it, where the highway literally blew away

in front of them. Folks on the other side managed to scramble out of their

vehicle, and their vehicle went downstream. They were completely cut off. The

inability to respond and so on just further accentuated and exacerbated the

problem they were in.

So I really hope we can get this resolved. There are

folks out there with ideas and they could come forward, so just get that

expression of interest going.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've been presenting this petition for quite some time,

I guess since I came to this House of Assembly, and I don't feel that there has

been much action on it.

The background of this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS there are no current operations at the Bull Arm

Fabrication Site; this is a world-class facility with the potential to

rejuvenate not only the local economy, but the provincial economy; there's a

lack of employment there and we would want the facility to encourage employment

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; it's an asset to the province, it was

built to benefit the province and a long-term tenant for the site would be

gainful business opportunities for tertiary businesses in the area as well; and

the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province.

I even have somebody on here that signed this petition

that's from Bloomfield, and that's not even in my district, so it obviously

affects just about everybody in the province.

It's a world-class facility; we have world-class

workers. Again, it comes back to the question I asked in the House today. The

reason why we're not attracting international business, because we don't have

the technology and the opportunity for them to come here and to do business away

from their native country.

I ask the minister if he could give us an update on

what he feels the direction is from Nalcor or OilCo to utilize this facility and

get a long-term tenant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll speak to this; I believe I have made comments

about this in the past.

The sad reality is that this is an area that's dealing

with this fiscal crisis that we face in the oil industry, the same as everywhere

else. The fact is that it was great to see a drill ship going out now, but this

is an issue worldwide, and sadly we see this happening at Bull Arm, which is a

world-class facility.

I would point out that there is no technical issue that

prohibits us from attracting international business. In fact, we try our best,

we are a part of virtual trade missions and we're a part of everything to try to

draw that attraction here. But the reality is that the big players right now

have reduced capital, they have reduced ability to invest here and they have

reduced exploration budgets. Right now, we're competing all over the world,

whether it's Guyana, Brazil, Norway, you name it.

We do know that Barnes is out there with a lease right

now and they are a tenant at the moment. They do have a lease that expires next

year and there are 27 employed out there right now – far from what it should be,

but what I will say is that we are keeping the asset in a good state. The

reality is we fully believe that we will have a return to what was and we will

be prepared for it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock, today,

Thursday, April 22, 2021.

SPEAKER:

The

motion is that we do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 10)

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

PETTEN:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I spoke on this at length yesterday and I

have another opportunity today, of course, in Committee, to have further

discussion. It comes back again and 24 hours later, you get a lot of time to

think about stuff. Sometimes you go and you soften up, sometimes you stay the

same, sometimes you get more determined, but this is one of those ones – it's

ironic, the last two days there have been a couple of things.

We debated yesterday on the PMR and this one happened

to be all grouped together. There's one word that's missing and it's the

independence – that's not being adhered to, I should say, and what's appropriate

and what's not appropriate for the House. There are lots of things that are

appropriate. We're lawmakers; we make a lot of laws, regulations and rules. We

set wages; a lot of responsibility that comes with being a Member of this House.

As I have said many times, there are 40 of us in this

House and we represent this province. No one should take this job lightly.

You're put here for a reason. We just went through three months of learning how

to get here. It's no easy task and it's something that we all should keep in

mind. Regardless of what the court of public opinion states a lot of times –

because I think if we governed ourselves by that on every issue, we'd probably

be led astray too.

I'll come back and I think it needs repeating:

independence has to be your guiding principle to get things right. Not

everything. You can't have independence on everything, but on certain things.

This is one of those ones. There's a time when you hear tell – and I know it has

happened many times at the municipal level, counsellors would go in and they'd

vote themselves a raise. As municipal counsellors, former mayors in this Chamber

now, they can attest to what I'm saying – public outcry galore and rightfully

so.

Yet, we prevent that. We bring in a process. We're

going to prevent that from happening. We're going to form this commission. Good,

bad, indifferent, whatever comes out of that commission, we'll accept what comes

our way. There's a lot of bad that comes that way. I've said this yesterday, a

lot of bad things come our way and we accept them. Yet, anything good comes

you're not accepting it – it's a raise, okay. It's not about a raise, by the

way. I don't think any Member in this House is advocating for a raise. It's all

about a process.

You bring in an MCRC – Members' Compensation Review

Committee – to take the politics out of this. It's meant to take the politics

out of it. It's supposed to be independent; they have no affiliation with us. I

sat in this Chamber in 2016 and the head of the Members' Compensation Review

Committee at that time – there was no love-in; government on the government's

side didn't get treated any different than anyone else. It was pretty well by

the book. You asked a question; you got an answer. I think any Member who sat

through that can agree to it. There was no sugar-coating it; there were no

favours. This person was in no one's court; she came in and made tough

decisions. Fair enough. We accepted it and we agreed to it. That's the way it

was supposed to be.

Like I said before, yesterday there was some talk about

the pensions. They were trying to grandfather in pensions and people started

crying out. It was only over a day or so but, anyway, everyone pulled back and

we went along with the MCRC. If you go through

Hansard , you can find out that it was said in this House that that

had to be your guiding principle. But, now, when it's politically cool and looks

good to say, no, we're not doing that; we're in a financial bind and we can't do

that, you go in and search yourself politically. But that still doesn't make it

right. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it fits the right time.

Mr. Chair, my gut would tell me if we were in a surplus

situation and this House were to sit here and approve a raise, there would be a

public outcry. It doesn't really matter the financial situation we're in, it's

where we are as a Legislature. It's the society you live in and it's never – a

no-no. It's meant to be independent, to remove all of that. If that Committee

came back and wanted to take a rollback and we came in here and we voted against

the Committee taking that rollback – we said we're going to keep the same wages

– how would that be responded to? My guess is it wouldn't be very good.

As I said yesterday, it's a cherry-picking event.

Again, I repeat, and I'll continue to repeat, it's not about a pay increase.

That's not where we are. It's about a process. When it suits you, when you can

bring the politics into something and it looks good and it's the right thing to

do, then you're going to do it, but you have to keep your independence. I don't

think that can be stressed enough, the independence of this process. Right now,

there's no independence. We're in a certain (inaudible) where it seems fit.

Many conversations – and we look in the media. Flick on

Twitter now anywhere at all and you'll find out the public opinion on

politicians is low. If you go into a quiz and they ask who is the lowest opinion

in professions, it's politicians, it's lawyers – they're all there, which is not

really fair because it's probably one bad lawyer or one bad politician. But we

diminish ourselves by agreeing to do what we're doing, exactly what was brought

forward in the House yesterday.

If you're entitled to a rollback, if you're supposed to

get a rollback and it's done independently, well b'y, that's it. You've done it

independently. Live with it. I come from a union background and we went into

arbitration. You roll the dice. That's the game but it was done independently.

That was even more hands on then. You negotiated for a raise, but an arbitrator

would come back and you had to live with that decision. It was binding

arbitration; you had to live with it.

This is really no different, only the fact is they ask

you your opinion, whether they want it or not. They may have had it – I think

that in 2016 it was a preconceived notion on a lot of this stuff, which is fine.

It's something that's out of our control. A lot of us were new at the time so it

was kind of a new experience for most of us.

It comes back to the process but it also comes back to

each and every Member in this House diminishing what we are. So we're not worthy

of that? An independent commission decides that you're entitled to a raise, but

because it's not politically cool, the public doesn't like it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I've got several conversations going on the floor and

I'd like for it to cease, please.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So if it was not cool then, you're going to go in now –

where does this end? We saw it yesterday in the PMR and we pleaded for

independence, we pleaded to get this right. The public should be asking for

that. They'll ask for independence on election review, but throw the crowd in

there out. They're overpaid anyway. They're over paid; they don't work. They

only work when the House is open. That's what you hear.

It comes down to, Mr. Chair – and I said this

yesterday. I was never a Star Trek fan but they always said, to boldly go where

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Second warning. I want to be able to hear the Member.

Thank you.

PETTEN:

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

HON. MEMBER:

Thank you for protecting me.

PETTEN:

Yeah, that's right. No, I don't need protection.

As the saying goes, people inherit – it's a taboo topic

in your talk. I spoke yesterday morning and I got a little bit of Twitter

traffic: Look at the provincial state, how dare you advocate for a raise? I'm

not advocating for a raise, but you have to stand for something, Mr. Chair. You

have to be able to stand for something.

I was just about to say, before I was interrupted, I've

never been a Star Trek fan but I always remember the quote: “To boldly go where

no man has gone before.” What's the matter with courage? I would bet money – I

wouldn't bet a lot because I'm not that silly, but the majority of this House

here agrees with what I'm saying. Just like the PMR yesterday – a majority agree

with me on that, too, by the way. It's not cool to do it because you have to toe

a party line.

Sometimes that is problematic with party stuff. But if

you have any respect for yourself and this Legislature, that should be enough.

I've said this in this House, and my colleagues can attest to this sometimes. I

have very pointed opinions, and you've probably noticed that in my conversations

in the House. I don't get a lot of coaching from anyone else. I kind of go my

own way; sometimes it can be dangerous. You never know, it is a surprise every

day.

I really believe you always should stand for something.

Sometimes you stand for an issue, you stand for something and you may stand

alone; that's fine too. Sometimes it is lonely, because I've been there. You go

to bed at night, you sleep and you do what's right. That's like every step of

the way of my life and no matter – it's not perfect, but I make lots of

mistakes. I am guided by a very principled approach of what's right.

I spoke yesterday on it and I went home and I did give

it honest reflection. I thought about it a lot last night and I wondered – I'm

honest with myself and I said: Should I have not sucked it up and went along and

done what the public and the willingness of government wants to do with this

issue? Sometimes I have those moments and I'll come back, I'll have a different

approach the next day and I'll be much more reserved. Actually when I went home

and start thinking no, I must get really resolved to the fact that this is not

right.

By doing what we're doing now, there is no need of us

ever having an MCRC again. So unless we change a process – I've spoke to the

Government House Leader opposite and I respectfully asked: no raises, don't give

any raises, but delay this and put it off to a totally independent – let them

decide on a go-forward basis. You have to live with whatever comes out of that,

Mr. Chair.

You have to live with whatever comes out of that so if

that means you're going to go back 2 per cent, you have to go back 2. That is a

fair, independent process; that's what you sign up for. This is not the way this

is being done; this is political. It is total politics, the truest form of

politics you'll ever see. That's all this is, it's idealistic.

The vast majority over there, it doesn't affect them.

The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands made that comment and he's right. That's

not where I'm to; it's about the process. It is also having the courage. It

frustrates me sometimes, and I sit in this House, why people don't really, truly

say what they believe.

I've long said this and, who knows, I may be held to my

word on it. I believe I will and I won't disappoint. If we were ever in

government, if I was ever in government and I sat on the government side as a

minister, I'd probably get myself into trouble. There are people close to me,

very close to me, and we've had pretty heated debates over my frankness. The

mayor of CBS mightn't be listening now, but he knows. Him and I have had down

and out dirty rackets where, as the mayor, he said: I thought you were my buddy.

But, I mean, I'm very principled. I speak my mind sometimes, and I'm not always

cool, but I get into trouble for that.

I believe in this case here we need to look at things

in a different lens and remove the silly games of politics out of this stuff. No

one wins here, Mr. Chair. If you're not comfortable based on our financial

situation and you don't think it's right, well, okay, defer it to another

Committee, ask for it to be reviewed. There are lots of mechanisms that can be

done. The will of this House – it's a powerful House; we can make any decision

now. But to just come in and flippantly say no, we're not doing it because it's

not cool. The public will support them.

I think the Question of the Day was on – I don't know

if anyone followed it. I think I seen it earlier. I'd say it's about 90-odd per

cent that said we don't deserve a raise. That's not the issue. It's not about

the raise, it's about the process and it's about your rationale for doing it.

I know that the Members opposite will be looking

forward to making a comment about the judges' raises. I can't control what was

said on this side of the House because if it never came out of my mouth, I had

no control over it.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

PETTEN:

That's right.

But if we were told we had no right to bring this in

the House, it shouldn't have been brought into the House. If we had no right to

vote against it, why did it come into the House? But when it comes in the House,

you have a right – anything that comes before us you have a right to vote, and

we voted against it.

The principle of the matter is it comes from an

independent tribunal. That's the bigger question. We have the ability to change

the laws. It should never have come to this House. That should never have come

to this House. The independent tribunal said they deserved the raise. We don't

have to agree, but the independent tribunal said they deserved it; that meant it

should have went on. I know the former minister of Justice was perplexed by it.

Maybe he's right. But the issue was it should never have been put in front of

us, because on the principle, if you're a principled person, you could not vote

for that raise in this climate based on the salaries given to those people. That

was the issue.

But if you want to change the laws and regulations, it

doesn't have to come to this House; it shouldn't come to this House. If you're

going to throw something out and you can't control the answer, you can't control

the narrative, so why are you throwing it on the floor of the House of Assembly?

Of all the places, to throw something out here and expect to the get the answer

you want, in a minority government, because that's what happened. Now, they got

the majority they'll probably get that through. But I don't think it ever should

come to the House. I personally don't think it should ever come to the House,

and the government opposite has the ability to change that law.

This count here, there's no reason we're here debating

this. We should not be in the Legislature debating whether we're entitled to a

raise or not. I'm adamant about that. There was a process put in place to

prevent this from ever happening, but because it's politically cool, it's good –

you always curry public favour. Always curry public favour. If they decided

tomorrow to try to bring a motion to cut every pay for MHAs, we would have

parades in the streets. We need to be bigger than that, but we also need to do

what's right and have the guts to stand up for what you believe in and give

yourself more credit than what we're giving ourselves.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hadn't intended on speaking to this piece of

legislation. My intent was to support my colleagues and stand up and to vote for

it, which I will still do. But I feel it necessary to make some comments in

regard to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader as it relates to the

judges' tribunal, because it will relate specifically to that. Again, it was

directly referenced there, because it was less than a year ago that I stood in

this House as the minister of Justice at the time and I brought forward a

resolution as it relates to the proposed raise for judges.

Now, I'll just point out some background for everybody

there, because it's very familiar to what we are dealing with here now. Again,

I'm just going to point out the irony of the situation that we're faced with

now. The difference in some of the comments that were made then and the comments

that are being made now this week. I'm not going to the substance, so much, of

this particular thing, but I'm just talking about the comments as it relates to

independence and principle and doing things right.

Back then, I had to stand up and do the very unpopular

thing of bringing forward a raise for Provincial Court judges through a

resolution in the House, which has been dictated by legislation for the last 30

years. Basically, there's a process where the judges get an individual,

government gets an individual and there's an independent third party that's

agreed by everybody. We have basically a review of the judges' salaries. I

believe it happens basically during every session, usually on every four years.

So they came forward with a resolution last year.

Again, completely independent, presented to government. It said that the judges

were actually entitled to a raise. I will point out that this was a completely

independent process of government, of this House. It has to be done, there is no

way around it, and failure to do it will result in the judge directing you to

come back to this House and forcing you to do it. Again, you're just not going

to get away. It's basically done for the same reason that the MCRC was put in

place. That we need to have a process to look at this independently.

In that particular case, what I'll point out is just

that I brought that resolution and entered it into the House. Not much was

actually said the first day but on the second day and the third day, I'll tell

you, Mr. Chair, I got carved up by the Opposition; I got carved to pieces.

They're apologizing now. Well, I tell you what: the scars are still there.

They can say now it wasn't me, it wasn't me. It doesn't

matter, it was the position of the team, which I respect. That's fine, that's

their team position. I did not see anybody digress from that position in any

public way or any private way. But what they did was these judges make a lot of

money, we're in a fiscally tough climate, we don't care what an independent

tribunal says; we cannot give them a raise. Do you know why they did that?

Because it was politically popular; a politically popular move completely filled

with politics.

The reason I say that is because I stood up and I took

it at the time. I put it in there because the law said that I had to. Again, I

remember the former Leader of the Opposition, and I'll give some credit to the

other Members here because most of them, except for the Member for Harbour Main,

are not trained lawyers, and there are times – and no disrespect to my

colleague, I wish the Member was here right now so he can answer because he knew

better. He knew better. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway. He did

it because he knew what it would cause, which would cause VOCM polls, saying: Is

the current Minister of Justice ridiculous? Believe me, it was higher than 90

per cent. It was higher than 90 per cent, I can guarantee you.

The reality is that we got laughed out. It's funny

because, again, the Member that used to sit in the chair, the former Leader of

the PC Party, said: Well, my God, I'm friends with judges, they're not going to

sue. They're not going to do anything bad. Why would they? In fact, the current

Member for Harbour Main said the judges will think we're doing them a favour.

That was what was said to me: we're going to be doing the judges a favour. They

don't want to have that. I said: Well, that's not the way it goes because this

is going to end up in court. The former Leader, he said: No, I don't think this

is going to end up in court, I'm friends with them.

Newsflash to the House of Assembly: It's in court. It

is in court, just as we said, but it didn't matter. It didn't matter because it

was good politics to go against that independent tribunal, which was not

popular.

What I'll point out, and I don't need to belabour it, I

don't need all the time, but I'll just point out that we talk about having

respect for yourself and for the Legislature, and sometime it's lonely – was one

of the quotes – and are very principled. Well, I certainly don't need any

lessons on that today.

What I will say is that I did something and the other

side tore me to pieces because it was popular. So to stand here and tell me

today that I am not principled because I don't think I deserve a raise, I'll

say: I will take my seat and I know that when I go to bed tonight, I will sleep

very softly because, again, I'm doing what I think is the best thing for me and

for the citizens that I represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am truly sorry that the Member is upset and scarred,

but I think –

HON. MEMBER:

He'll get over it.

DINN:

Yes, you're right. He'll get over it.

I don't say that sarcastically, I really don't. We come

into this House, we debate issues, and whatever happens in the House should stay

in the House. We leave and have a conversation outside.

I certainly wasn't around when this Committee was

formed. When I got into this game, we'll call it, I was elected by the people to

serve the people and that's all I'm going to do here. When we talk about our own

wages, our own benefits – increased, decreased, deduction, kick you out,

whatever – I really, really find that to be in a conflict of interest. I don't

know why that comes on the floor here. Again, I say that not even thinking about

if it's a raise or not. There is a certain amount of independence that we need

to be doing with that in terms of forming a Committee.

If I may, I just want to go back to a press release

from the House of Assembly, November 1, 2016. The title is: “Members'

Compensation Review Committee … Report Released.” If I can read this to the

record here, because I think this really puts in perspective what this is all

about. I'm surprised we haven't talked about Muskrat Falls in this discussion

yet, but we can throw anything into this discussion. But if you want to keep it

real and focus on the issue, then the issue is there was a Committee appointed;

people gave of their time to that Committee to carry out a mandate of that

Committee; to provide a report, an independent assessment, to us. That's what it

was.

I'm looking at this news release, and this will take

the Minister of Education back because he was also Speaker at the time: “The

Honourable Tom Osborne Speaker of the House of Assembly, today released the

report of the 2016 Members' Compensation Review Committee (MCRC). Appointed in

accordance with subsection 16(1) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , the

Committee's mandate is to inquire into and prepare a report respecting the

salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid to Members of

the House of Assembly. Such a committee is required to be appointed once during

each General Assembly.” It's quite clear what the Committee was intended to do.

“MCRC 2016 was appointed by resolution of the House of

Assembly on May 12, 2016, with an effective date of July 7, 2016. The members of

the Committee are Ms. Sandra Burke, Q.C. (chair), Dr. Kathy LeGrow and Mr.

Jeffrey Pardy. Their report was delivered to the Speaker on Friday afternoon

(October 28).”

There are a couple of quotes here in this press

release, one from the hon. Tom Osborne, then Speaker of the House of Assembly.

“'I wish to thank Ms. Burke, Dr. LeGrow and Mr. Pardy for their extensive work

in conducting the review and preparing the report. I also wish to thank the

public and the Members of the House of Assembly who provided input.'” Extensive

work; we called on this Committee to do an extensive, important piece of work.

There's a quote from Ms. Sandra Burke, the chair: “'Our

goals were to ensure that Members of the House of Assembly have a reasonable and

sustainable compensation package, and to enhance the accountability and

transparency of our elected officials. We believe that we have achieved our

goals, being mindful of the significant role of an MHA in our democratic society

as well as the province's current economic circumstances.'” Which is something

we've already discussed; the Committee took into account the current economic

circumstances.

“The 2016 MCRC Report contains a total of 59

recommendations which will be brought to the House of Assembly Management

Commission for review. The Commission has the power to modify the

recommendations, but only in a manner that does not exceed the maximum amounts

recommended by the Committee.”

The reason I bring that forward is to try and bring us

back – and there are so many new Members in this House that certainly weren't

around in 2016 – to what this whole Committee was formed for. I know this is the

House of Assembly and we take every opportunity to attack – I'll say attack, but

maybe that's too much of an aggressive word, but to bring up other items, but I

am trying to focus on this.

I don't care – and this will be in

Hansard – if I'm getting a raise. I

don't care if I'm getting cut back. I'm not here for that. I was elected by the

people of Topsail - Paradise to bring their issues to the floor here. I'm

committed to that, at least for the next four years or if there's an election

called beforehand. We have to have respect for the people we appoint to

Committees, their extensive time that is put to these Committees, to bring an

independent review to the floor. I know you can talk about the judges' salaries

and so on, but the difference here is we should not be commenting or debating

our own salaries.

I really find there's something wrong with that. I know

my time on municipal council, I remember we had to vote on salaries. The last

time we voted on it, I voted it down. I said: Why are we doing this? There are

processes in place. I know in the public service, if NAPE gets an agreement,

then management tends to get an equivalent raise. There's a process. I think we

cannot lose sight of the fact that this Committee was appointed for a role, and

they put forward a recommendation. Again, it can be modified, but I just think

it's totally wrong that we're discussing something that, in my mind, is a

conflict of interest for us all here.

I want to end, again, with saying: I am not for that.

I'm here for the people of the province. If it's a raise, if it's a cutback, I

don't care. I will be working the same job tomorrow as I am today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House

Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I won't take a lot of time at all, but I've heard some

words across the way, like willing to stand up and be bold. Well, as a person

that has been elected – I've been elected four times now– I'm bold enough to say

here today quite clearly, now is not the time for us as MHAs and leaders in this

province to increase our own pay. This is not the time, Mr. Chair.

We have evidence or we have

Hansard from very similar comments from the former Member for

Windsor Lake, when he talks about a tribunal that was outdated. By the time it

got to this floor, it was outdated.

Mr. Chair, I'll end again, and I'll repeat this as many

times as I get the opportunity today, I have no problem standing in my place

today and boldly saying: Now is not the time for MHAs to increase our pay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are just a couple of points I want to make about

this. I've listened to my colleagues speak about this issue and I have to say

that I share the views of my colleagues from Conception Bay South and as well

Topsail - Paradise when they say this is a very uncomfortable effort that we

make here. It's very uncomfortable for me and for them to be speaking about

something like this, debating our own salaries.

I want to try to understand why this is being discussed

here today, and I'm not really sure that it's clear to me. We do have an

independent Committee, and for the benefit of those watching, that Committee was

struck – it's an independent Committee – to basically oversee these types of

matters. It's called the Members' Compensation Review Committee, the MCRC. We've

heard it referred to a lot here the last couple of days. That is the purpose of

that Committee. It is struck for the purpose of looking at things like the

Members of the House of Assembly, our wages.

This legislation that's before us today, it's Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and

Administration Act. This legislation before the House, what it really does, from

what I can understand, is that it removes from the act the formula for providing

MHAs with salary increases. The Government House Leader, when he introduced the

bill, he indicated that this would be a continuation of a 13-year wage freeze,

correct?

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Yes. So if this bill passes, which it most likely will,

it will continue that 13-year wage freeze for MHAs.

We're not saying that we believe that there should be

an increase to the salaries, because we do recognize, as the Government House

Leader has stated, that this is a terrible fiscal climate for the people of the

province and we will put them first, because that's what we do. That's why we

are here, is to think and be concerned about the interests of the people we

represent.

What I find curious and perhaps disingenuous when I

hear stated – the Government House Leader say that we need to lead. In other

words, the statement is: we need to lead by example, right? But let's look at

the salaries of Cabinet ministers. They're not affected to the same degree as

other MHAs. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

We need to lead, yes we do. That's why we are not

disagreeing with it. What our concern over here is, is with the process. We have

a Committee that has the responsibility and has been tasked with that

responsibility to oversee these things so we're not debating our own salaries.

Inherently, that is wrong.

Another issue that I want to state, and I find this

somewhat sad as well – yesterday, the Member for Conception Bay South referenced

it – there's no sympathy for politicians, and public opinion about us is pretty

low. I'd probably say that it's at the same level as lawyers. I, as well, am a

lawyer, so I have a double whammy here.

I find that really sad and I really feel that we need

to, maybe, yes, be bold in that regard, and maybe perhaps talk and have more

conversations about what we do as MHAs. Because I can tell you, I practiced law

for many years as well, in the trenches as a criminal defence lawyer for 12

years, and then another five as a human rights lawyer. I know how tough that

was, but I have to tell you, this is really tough work, but it's work that I'm

honoured and privileged to do everyday. I love it, and I'm here because I feel

that it's my responsibility to serve the people that elected me. It's not about

the money.

I can pretty much say that stands for most people here,

because I know that they have the demands of being an MHA – and I'm sure as a

minister as well. It is tough. I don't think it's a bad thing to talk about,

that we really do work very hard and that we have the best interests – I believe

most of us have the best interests of the people in our hearts. I know the hours

that we put in, the sleepless nights. I can vouch for that. I know that pretty

much most of us here have those nights as well because we're concerned about the

issues that face the people that we represent.

It's very sad when I look at the poll today on VOCM and

I see that there's such disdain, I guess, for politicians. I believe it's

because they don't understand what we do. I think that's incumbent upon us,

perhaps, to bring the discussion more, have more debate about it and explain the

things that we do, because it's important work; it's great work, but I think

there needs to be a better understanding amongst the populace of what we do.

The concern that I have with this bill being passed has

to do with attracting good, competent candidates to elected office. With

salaries that are very low, how are we going to raise the bar, if you will, and

attract people? Yes, I would say that most of us are here for the fact that we

represent the people and that we want to serve people. It's the honour of public

service. There's no question about that, but many people, perhaps, don't have

the means to be able to do that, to run for political office. They need to have

good salaries.

I think that it's okay to talk about that and to say we

need to have adequate compensation for people, because it is no doubt a 24-7

job. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, there's no question about that.

I've been doing this for two years, and when you're sleeping, you're thinking

about it. At least I know I am, and I'm sure I'm no different than most people

here.

I think we need to look at – and keep it in context.

I'm concerned about the fact that we're back here and this legislation before

the House removes from the act with respect to salary increases. I really don't

believe that that's the proper way to be doing this. I think it puts all of us

sort of in a conflict, really. It puts us in an awkward position because we have

an interest in it, in our own salaries, obviously. Yet, we're commenting about

it.

I certainly don't want to be talking about it. I did

want to talk about those issues, about trying to attract better candidates,

qualified candidates and people to run for elected office, to attract women as

well. As well the process, that process has to be independent, and that's why we

have the Committee in place. I really find it difficult to understand what we're

doing here.

At any rate, on those notes, in conclusion, I'd just

like to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time here today.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber -

JOYCE:

Humber - Bay of Islands.

CHAIR:

Humber - Bay of Islands

JOYCE:

know of our soccer days you didn't want to come down to Bay of Islands, but you

did. I have to give you credit.

I'm going to speak a few minutes on this. Mr. Chair, I

said yesterday that I would be voting for this, and I'll stick by that. The

reason why I will stick by that is because if government is willing to bring in

an amendment to take away something from a Committee that they will set up, I,

for one, will be holding the government accountable to start getting our

finances in order. If you're willing to walk in here because it's politically

expedient, politically correct, so people won't be upset, I'm going to hold the

government accountable. Because when you hear phrases coming out, well, we're

not going to do much now. We're going to go out and have more consultation.

Another year of consultation is another year of debt that we're going to incur

and another year that we're going to kick it down the road.

I will stick to my guns on that, Mr. Chair, for that

principle, and I will be speaking a lot on it. Because when you look at another

year of interest on the money that we have to borrow just to go for this year,

another year, just interest that we're going to have to borrow, and here we are

now the government trying to stand up and say, look, what we're doing, people;

we're going to take away raises.

I said it before; I can go back many years where

government brought in this cut the wages from MHAs, cut their salaries. It's

great. People out in the public love it; they think it's great. But I can assure

you one thing – and said it before – when we stand in this House and we start

undermining and cutting each other, how is the general public going to have

confidence in politicians? How are they doing to have confidence? It's just not

going to happen – it's just not going to happen.

I just want to put something on the record. As I said,

why do we have these Committees set up if we're not going to follow the

Committees? Why do we do it? I know the Minister of Industry spoke earlier. I

know I'm going to state this now and I'm going to state it publicly. I was here

back years ago when we came in with the judges also and we turned it down. We

went to court, lost it in court and had to pay court expenses also. When that

came in with the minister who brought it in – he was the minister of Justice and

Public Safety at the time, the Attorney General – I was voting for it because

the process was done and the process was followed. If we follow a process and we

bring it to the House of Assembly and if we're just going to say no to it,

because it's not looking good in the public's eyes, why do we even have the

process? Why don't we find another avenue?

The minister at the time did take a lot of heat

publicly over that, but I can tell you it was the right thing to do. When it

gets back in court and they'll get the same thing that the judges brought forth,

the remuneration that the Committee recommended at the time, it's going to be

proven that that was the process. In this case here, setting up a process and

then having a Committee come through to make the recommendations – and there's

absolutely no doubt we're in a financial bind. If you look at the amount of

money that you're talking about here, and government is going to say yeah, this

is great, the public don't want us to do that – how about the $2.2-billion

deficit we have? That's what we should be tackling. That's what we should be

tackling is the $2.2-billion deficit.

Now we're nickeling and diming – I'm going to vote for

it, by the way. I will vote with the government not to approve this for the

reasons I mentioned earlier. Somewhere along the line this government now, with

a majority, has to sit down with all the stakeholders and we have to start

getting our finances in order.

I remember, and I said it before, Clyde Wells did it.

He worked on it. He brought everybody in and he took a lot of heat. Yet, I

guarantee you he was respected for it. I can tell the people of this province

right now, and I've been around a long while, don't underestimate the

intelligence of the electorate to know what financial situation we're in. Don't

do it.

They understand the situation we're in; we just have to

work with all the groups and all the stakeholders in this province to help

ourselves get out of this mess. I understand the bantering going back and forth.

I've been there; sometimes I have been quiet too much. I understand the

bantering back and forth: us, the PCs, NDP, the independents and the Liberals. I

understand all that but somewhere along the line for the betterment of the

province we have to come together, even if it's go in a room somewhere and let's

start working things out on how we can move forward. Get the unions to sit down:

how can we move this province forward.

That's what we're going to have to do. It's all right

to get up in this House and do our political stuff, do our bantering and do our

questions – which they should do. Opposition should keep government accountable.

Absolutely no doubt, they should keep government accountable. The NDP should

keep government accountable, the independents should keep government

accountable, but as we keep government accountable, we have to work with

government for the betterment of the province. That's what we need to do.

In this case, this is brought forth and politics now is

stepping in there, absolutely no doubt. I remember when all the debate went on

about the judges. I was sat here; I remember it all. I remember what was said.

Go back in Hansard ; I remember what

was said. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now we're saying we have a policy,

we should follow it. Back when it was the judges, we shouldn't follow it.

I remember Ross Wiseman stood up one day and we asked

him a question in the House that he said something before. He stood up and said:

Damn Hansard . Be careful what you say

in this House because it is on record and people can look it up. So when it

happens one day to you, get ready, because when that shoes is on the other foot

like it's happening here today, it's coming right back at you, the shoe is

coming back at you.

My only advice here to government is that I will be

supporting this, but I will be supporting with the caveat that remember I said

it. When the government stands up now and says we have to wait and we have to do

more consultations as we go another year without tackling that deficit, I, for

one, will be raising my voice to say this has been going on now since last

August, when you formed the government, that you were going to set up the Moya

Greene committee – which I'm sure they're going to do great work; with the

health care, also, I'm sure it's going to be great work.

Every time we take it and push it down the road, just

remember interest is getting higher and higher on what we're borrowing; now,

it's gone up to a $2-billion deficit. I understand about the pandemic. I

understand all of that. I understand the needs and that the government had to

step in and help out small businesses. I understand all of that. That's never

going to be debated by me, whatsoever.

But somewhere along the line, government – if you're

bringing this in now and saying we have to be accountable to the people of the

province, I'm asking the government today to be more accountable to the people

of the province on the deficit. Absolutely, when someone sits down and figures

out how much this is going to cost the province compared to a $2.2-billion

deficit, it's like putting your hand in the water, when you take it out you

won't even notice it. Yet, here we are bantering back and forth if we should go

ahead with it.

The other thing that I heard some Members opposite in

the Opposition talk about was the process; we should find some way to take the

process out of our hands. There's nothing more difficult than anybody sitting

around here saying, yes, we should get this for ourselves and, no, we shouldn't

get this for ourselves. It is putting everybody in this room in an awkward

position – everybody. Then, if the Liberals were on this side, they would be

doing the same thing that the Opposition is doing, because it's awkward for

everybody.

I'll just close my speech on that, Mr. Chair. I will

ask government to start and bring forward the plan that they're going to have

for the deficit reduction, what plan they're going to have for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. If you're going to show true leadership, true

leadership brings out bold ideas, makes a plan, sticks by it and convinces

people this is why we have to do it.

I remember, again, Clyde Wells – I always remember – in

1993 after he made a lot of bold decisions, he won more seats than he did in

1989. The electorate understands and the electorate is more intelligent than we

always give them credit for, trust me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've truly enjoyed the debates here this afternoon.

It's somewhat heartwarming to hear the reasoned perspectives of Members coming

forward: the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, for example, making a very

passionate case that change is required.

Change is never easy for the mover; sometimes it can be

quite difficult, but the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is imploring the

government to act on change. The status quo is not acceptable to the hon. Member

and he is prepared to be a part of that initiative. Even though sometimes as

constituency representatives we may want much, the Member makes the case that

what we need more is a new outlook to our finances. I appreciate the hon. Member

saying that. I'm sure that in future debates that will hold true as well. What

we're here to talk about today, Mr. Chair, is really questions of change as

well, whether or not a formula that was brought in in 2006 through the advocacy,

through the efforts of a learned jurist – whether or not this Parliament should

be held to a fixed standard brought in by the recommendations of that jurist.

There's a fundamental tenet in our Westminsterian

parliamentary traditions and systems, it's the doctrine of parliamentary

supremacy. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy goes as follows – it's three

key points; one being that Parliament, or our Legislature in this particular

case, can make any laws concerning matters that are within its jurisdiction.

Parliament is the supreme lawmaker and no Parliament of one day can bind a

Parliament of a future day. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy invokes a

pathway for change.

Mr. Chair, what is before us today, in this particular

piece of legislation, in this matter, is whether or not the Parliament will be

bound by a former decision. Now, the case has been made that when advice is

sought and received from an independent body, that it must be acted upon and

cannot be deviated from; otherwise, it would break the chain of integrity. It

would break the chain of being able to stand the test of scrutiny.

Well, Mr. Chair, I also note during the course of the

debates of this past week, the Member for Conception Bay South went on at length

earlier this week, in earlier debates, indicating that to him optics matter.

Government must be in lockstep with the popular sentiment of the day of the

people. Failure to be in lockstep with popular sentiment, failure to understand

that optics matter, will cause the government great grief.

Mr. Chair, I believe that the government's stay is in

lockstep with the sentiments of the people, but at the same time, I also believe

that the government is very cognizant of the fact that it's being called upon

for leadership. It is not simply an echo chamber of voices exterior or voices

outside; it is providing leadership.

I'll leave with one parting comment. If we are to be

held rigid to independent or outside advisory bodies, if Parliament's supremacy

is not to be invoked, will those Members who suggest that we should be rigid to

advisory bodies and never have debate on the floor of this Assembly when we

receive those learned opinions, would they hold that true, for example, for the

Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council? Would they hold that same

concept for the provincial Economic Recovery Team's advisory?

I think, Mr. Chair, in all of these instances, you

cannot cherry-pick and say we shall be rigid in one instance; Parliament is not

supreme, but in others it must be. Either we are or we are not. I hold the view

that this Chamber is the ultimate expression of the view of the people. We have

to be leaders, not followers. We have to be cognizant of what popular opinion

is, but we also have to understand that our role as leaders is not just simply

to be an echo chamber of popular sentiment; it is to do what's in the best

interest of the province, to bring people to that place and to seek compromise.

I think, Mr. Chair, what you will find is that this

move, this initiative, I suspect will undoubtedly be endorsed 100 per cent by

this Legislature. It should be endorsed 100 per cent by this Legislature. It

does reflect leadership in a time when it's required. I hope all Members will be

part of that leadership initiative.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's

Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be clear, if it comes before this House that I have

to approve a salary increase for me while I'm sitting here, the answer will be

no. My support for that has not wavered.

I'll try not to repeat what I said in the previous day,

but I do believe that my job here is to advocate for those who don't necessarily

get increases based on a committee, whether it's a learned jurist, whether it's

a parliamentary Committee, regardless. I can tell you, when I look at the people

I serve, some of them, it's difficult. If I did my math correctly, for me, I

think it was the 5 per cent increase, it would amount to another $6,000 or

$7,000 or so. I could be wrong. But that's a significant amount. For some

people, that would be, for the people I've had to serve, a gold mine.

Now, it's interesting because there's a certain bright

spot to this in the fact that the government Members are asking that we

basically go against the recommendation of the Committee and we not proceed with

the salary. It gives me hope. Because, you see, there is a Minimum Wage Review

Committee that puts forward steps which now gives me the hope that, rather than

rest on the increments set out, we can now have the power to actually do what's

right for many, many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I'll be pursuing

that. If