June 3, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 10
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Before we start our regular business, I would like to
rule on the point of order yesterday by the Minister Responsible for Women and
Gender Equality.
There was no point of order. It was just a disagreement
between two Members.
Statements by Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members' statements from the hon. Members for the Districts
of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Placentia - St. Mary's, Humber - Bay of
Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands and Ferryland.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I speak today to honour a constituent of mine. Mrs.
Bonita Spracklin became involved with the Army Cadet corps 2410, Bell Island, in
1992 as a parent volunteer because three of her children were cadets and five of
her seven children became members of the corps. She was instrumental in forming
the Parents Committee, which is now the support group. As a founding member of
the Parents Committee, she spearheaded a huge fundraiser to purchase much-needed
band equipment for the corps.
In 1994, she was encouraged to join the cadet
instruction program. She enrolled in the necessary courses to move herself
through the ranks of the cadet movement and obtain the highest rank possible,
that being captain. When she graduated with her rank of captain, she was named
top candidate for the captain's qualification course. She accomplished all this
while still raising her very young family.
She held various positions in the corps throughout her
tenure. In 2009, she accepted the position of commanding officer until her
retirement on May 2, 2021.
Captain Spracklin has the distinction of being the
first female commanding officer of the Bell Island Army Cadet corps, which has
more than 100 years service. For her 29 years she served the youth on Bell
Island and said that if she made the difference in the life of one youth then
her work had been rewarded.
I ask all Members to thank Bonnie for her service to
the youth of Bell Island.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
S.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Karen Corcoran and Annie Walsh, two
students from my District of Placentia - St. Mary's are this year's winners of
the 2021 provincial Sharing Our Culture Anti-Racism Poster Contest.
Karen and Annie are students of Fatima Academy in St.
Bride's. More than 300 students took part in the contest. Karen said that being
from a small community she hasn't seen a lot of racism in her area but sees it
happening in a lot of places around the world, the country and the province.
Karen's first-place poster for the Grades 10 to 12
category titled All Colours Are Beautiful is a drawing of four females of
different races. Karen's idea came from the attention that anti-racism has been
getting in the media.
Annie won first place in the Grade 7 to 9 category with
the colourful drawing featuring flags of the world with the words: Where I'm
from does not define me. Annie said she has a low tolerance for racist attitudes
so it was really important for her to do this as it annoys her how some people
are not accepting at all.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Karen
Corcoran and Annie Walsh.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, on May 3, 2021, a well-known and respected resident of Benoit's Cove
passed away at the age of 78.
Bernard White was known as the person who always leant
a helping hand, a community leader and a man of values. He was an active member
of the Qalipu First Nation band and served four terms as the Benoit's Cove ward
councillor. He was very passionate about the Indigenous ancestry and culture and
was a strong advocate for those fighting for recognition during the membership
process.
Bernard worked diligently supporting the Qalipu band
and the issues they pursue, in particular, the issue related to the fisheries.
He also served as a councillor with the town council of Humber Arm South for
three years.
Bern was a dedicated family man and will be sadly
missed by his wife of 57 years, Leona; his children: Edward, Christina, Pamela,
Diane, Karen, Mandy; his nine grandchildren; seven great-grandchildren; and his
Qalipu council family and many friends.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join with me in
offering our condolences to Bernard's family. Bernard, from your immediate
family and your Qalipu family: Mi'soqo app welteskatulti'kw – until we all meet
again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mount Pearl has long been recognized not just for its
top-notch sport and recreational infrastructure, but for a sporting fraternity
comprised of amazing individuals who give so much of themselves to our
community. One such citizen that I wish to recognize today is my good friend Mr.
Herb Jenkins, affectionately known by many as the Senator.
Herb has been an active and vital member of the Mount
Pearl Soccer Association since the 1970s and has coached many different teams in
local, provincial and national tournaments. He was the first Newfoundlander to
become a national referee, and shared that expertise with many through his local
officiating clinics. He has also been named Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer
Association Provincial Coach of the Year and has been inducted into the Mount
Pearl Soccer Association and Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association Hall
of Fame.
While his contributions to soccer are many, his ongoing
contribution to our community has gone well beyond his chosen sport. This
evening I look forward to celebrating with him as he's given the honour of
becoming the fifth Honorary Life Member within the Mount Pearl Soccer
Association Hall of Fame.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
this amazing individual.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to recognize many groups of volunteers,
businesses and individuals in the District of Ferryland who took the initiative
to organize a cleanup in their towns and communities.
One of the major cleanups was organized in the Town of
Witless Bay where, for many years, there were several wreckages of vehicles and
RVs abandoned and left to rust on Gull Pond Road. A group of volunteers from
Witless Bay and surrounding communities, along with heavy equipment operators,
construction companies and other businesses in the area volunteered their time
and equipment to help make this event a huge success.
As well, many other individuals and groups organized
cleanups in several other towns and communities within the district. It is great
to see so many members of the district doing their part to keep our community
clean and beautiful. As your MHA for the District of Ferryland, I cannot thank
you enough.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in
recognizing the several volunteers in the district who came together in keeping
our communities clean.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of the
final report of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and
Girls; an occasion made even more sombre by the discovery of the remains of 215
Indigenous children at a residential school in British Columbia. This discovery
has deeply impacted us all.
Earlier today, the federal government launched the
National Action Plan to address racism and the disproportionate levels of
violence against Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals across
Canada. Since the release of the national inquiry's final report, we have been
working with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to develop the
National Action Plan and remain committed to continuing this work going forward.
On the local level, we will now focus our work on
talking with Indigenous peoples in Newfoundland and Labrador to address the
calls for justice from a provincial perspective. While our continued work with
our colleagues across the country is important, our priority remains the safety
and well-being of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me
today in honouring the strength and resilience of Indigenous women and girls and
2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals in our province and across the country. I ask you all to
commit to being part of the change needed to ensure these individuals live in a
province free from fear of violence and discrimination.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in
honouring the strength and resilience of Indigenous women, girls and
two-spirited and LGBTQQIA+ individuals across our country.
The final report of the Inquiry into Missing and
Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is a reminder that we all must do our part
to address the calls for justice and to build a better country and province for
all residents to feel safe, be supported and prosper.
The discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children
in British Colombia is a disturbing reminder that Indigenous peoples face
disproportionate levels of violence. As provincial leaders, we must work in step
with Indigenous leaders to implement the calls for action. Indigenous leaders
and communities must guide our actions and approaches.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister for an advance
copy of her statement, and join her in recognizing the anniversary of the final
report of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
We recognize that reconciliation is not just about
saying the right things but also listening to our Indigenous partners and
following their lead. The provincial government must now take the next step and
work hard to implement the recommendations that came out of this report.
Collectively, we have a lot of work ahead of us. The
tasks before us call for more resources, not fewer. Let's do the right thing and
show our commitment to reconciliation with our words and our deeds.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize May 30 to June 5 as
National AccessAbility Week.
This week is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the
valuable contributions of persons with disabilities in our communities
throughout our province.
Persons with disabilities are leaders, mentors and role
models whose diverse perspectives and experiences enrich our society in every
way.
In particular, I would like to recognize the Provincial
Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, as well as
members of the community of and for persons with disabilities who work
tirelessly on behalf of their fellow citizens.
By sharing their experiences and expertise, they have
been instrumental in shaping the direction of our proposed accessibility
legislation that will move our province forward in a way that promotes dignity,
fairness and respect for all.
I would also like to recognize the efforts of the many
individuals, communities, businesses and workplaces that are actively working
with persons with disabilities to identify, remove and prevent barriers to
accessibility and promote inclusion in our province. The value of their work can
never be overstated.
When the principles of accessibility and inclusion are
embraced, a world of opportunities opens for all. This was evident last week on
Froude Avenue here in St. John's, where the Premier, federal Minister O'Regan
and I opened new housing units, four of which are fully equipped for persons
with disabilities.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement.
I join with the minister in recognizing the valuable
contributions of persons with disabilities. In each and every community there
are contributions by individuals with disabilities. Many are involved with
charities, sporting events, community programs and their involvement is a major
asset to our province.
Many disabled athletes are an inspiration for our
disabled children attempting to overcome disabilities. We remember Paralympic
star Liam Hickey returning to a motorcade after winning the silver medal in
sledge hockey. We remember Katarina Roxon, the pride of Kippens, returning to a
gold medal from the 2016 Rio Summer Paralympics.
These individuals and many others have shown leadership
at provincial, national and world events. Their leadership, their dedication,
their experiences at world events make our province proud and help shape the
need for accessibility legislation.
It is important to recognize the contribution of
efforts by individuals, community groups, workplaces and the list goes on, in
ensuring barriers are knocked down and inclusion is a necessity. Let's continue
to ensure the importance of accessibility and that we are all provided the same
opportunities to succeed in life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement and join him in recognizing National Accessibility Week. In Estimates
last night, we discussed the upcoming accessibility legislation in broad-brush
strokes. Let me say that we look forward to seeing a draft of it later in the
year, and welcome any opportunity to advance integration of all persons with
disabilities into the broader community. In particular, we ask that any
forthcoming legislation mandate the incorporation of universal design principles
into new builds, both in public and private sectors.
Finally, we also ask that government amend the
Elections Act to ensure that those with disabilities aren't disproportionately
disenfranchised ever again in the voting process, as unfortunately was the case
in the recent provincial election.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any
further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize some of what we learned
since Monday's budget. The government is eliminating the English School
District, the Centre for Health Information and NL911 as separate entities,
without knowing the impact on spending, service delivery or jobs. For all they
know, it could leave the province worse off.
I ask the Premier: Why did your government choose to
make these choices rashly and blindly without knowing the facts?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Minister of Finance has already spoken to this,
we see there are significant deficiencies to be had. In my six months prior to
this, I saw inefficiencies within the system, duplication of services. These are
the type of efficiencies, the type of budgetary restraints that we need to put
forward to protect the future of the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We would have thought that these efficiencies would
have been based on analysis that we have yet to see any documentation.
The Economy document published with
Budget 2021 states that the province's
population is projected to decline by nearly half a per cent this year. In fact,
the document projects population losses for five years in a row.
When will addressing the steady population decline by
stimulating real job growth become a priority for the Premier?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.
Obviously, jobs are essential to, I hope, every single
Member of this House in protecting the future of this province. We have
recognized the demographic crisis. Perhaps I'm the most to have spoken about
this. I've been very open about this; this is a silent crisis that is facing the
province right now. I fully recognize it; our government fully recognizes it,
which is why we put such an important emphasis on job creation and growing our
population through immigration as well as retention, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Economy
document also projects that employment will start declining after next year and
keep declining year after year for as far into the future as the model projects.
When will creating the conditions for job growth become
one of the Premier's top priorities?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, we're certainly focused on the economy and creating jobs. I think
that's reflected in the budget. I believe that we've hit the right balance of
creation while solving inefficiencies within the system to correct our
structural deficit that's been left here by previous governments, including the
one opposite, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During our debate this week, we asked a multitude of
times to outline exactly the data that would show that and the process forward.
We've yet to get that. Mr. Speaker, we're very skeptical and for an obvious
reason.
Mr. Speaker, through an ATIPP request, an individual
obtained some of the costs for the Premier's Big Reset team. The people of this
province forked over almost $100,000 for private office space and personal
accommodations, at a time where every dollars counts.
Can the Premier explain to the people of this province
why spending taxpayers' money in this way was necessary when there is plenty of
office space available in government-owned buildings?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for that question.
Of course, all of this work done by the Premier's
Economic Recovery Team was done on a volunteer basis. There was some cost
incurred, of course, in the operations of such an important team and such an
important undertaking. We believe that this was a good investment of our money
for the results that we achieved to be able to find efficiencies, think outside
the box and present new ideas to the people of the province so that we can
create a path forward, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, it's day three of trying to get some details on the budget. The only
answer we got yesterday certainly needs further clarification.
Does the minister know why $2.5 million for geoscience
data in the Department of Industry is a, quote: COVID-related unforeseen
expenditure budgeted in Consolidated Fund Services under COVID Related
Contingency?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They got it wrong yesterday and now they're trying
again.
Mr. Speaker, we put the $2.5 million as an additional
investment toward mining. I'm sure the Members opposite are supportive of that
particular expenditure. We put it under the COVID contingency because we want to
support mining coming out of COVID. We're doing additional exploration.
It is good for the province; it is good for job
creation. We have a lot of minerals in this province that the world needs, Mr.
Speaker. The whole reason why we're putting in additional money for exploration
is to be able to create jobs. I'm sure the Member opposite understands that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, we're all for creating jobs, it's just when you see something that says
it's related to an unforeseen expenditure. Clearly, if the minister wants to put
money into mining, put it into mining and we'll be glad to support it.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of detail and non-committal
language in this budget is a major problem, but it's not just us saying that.
The president of the Nurses' Union talks about a lack of details on health care
cuts. The president of NAPE agrees and talks about lack of details in the
budget. The president of the federation goes further and I repeat: “There was a
lot of 'we'll review stuff,' a lot of political nonsense words I guess that
sound good but probably means something else. I'm very nervous about what
exactly that does mean ….”
I ask the minister: Have you had discussions with the
president of the Nurses' Union and the president of NAPE and provided them with
details of the budget?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Again, Mr. Speaker, they get it wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we can go back and forth all day on this.
The Labrador North Chamber of Commerce: “We are optimistic government will move
forward with reducing debt expenses, deficit and borrowing…. But addressing debt
needs to be balanced with stimulating the economy. Government should look to
Labrador ….” We certainly have in this budget, Mr. Speaker.
TD Bank: “In what will likely be well received by
investors and rating agencies, Budget 2021 commits to significantly improving
Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal position in coming years.” I can continue and
go on, Mr. Speaker.
We will meet with all stakeholders, we will continue
the dialogue and we will make sure that everyone understands the path forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, she hasn't provided the details of the budget to these
people. The words I just spoke are their words, not mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, for three days we've asked about details in the budget, and for three
days we've been refused an answer. The people of the province deserve better.
Once again, I will ask simply: Do you know, Minister,
how many people will lose their jobs and how much money will be saved by moving
the English School District, the Centre for Health Information and NL911 into
government?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
T.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to point out very
clearly that I find it ironic they don't seem to be supporting this move, when
very clearly in Estimates last year they advocated for us to do exactly what
we've done: fold the English School District into the department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, we did not say anything about not supporting it; we simply are
asking for the details. The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
deserve to know the details.
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about evidence-based
decision-making. Well, it's a lot more credible when you show us the evidence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, the 2020 Pre-Budget Consultation document reads: “Today government is
focused on attrition, which allows for a gradual reduction of government
positions ….”
I ask the minister: Do you know if attrition is still a
practice? If so, do you know how many positions are projected to be removed this
year through attrition?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
T.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, we will get a better understanding of what the fiscal and operational
efficiencies are when we're able to actually complete the transition.
I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, in last year's
Estimates their side of the House said: “… we look at a school board and the
Department of Education would become one streamlined and would operationalize
and look after the schools.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, they went on to say: I think it may be top-heavy, that every single
entity is top-heavy, but if you merge them together there may be resources and
dollars that, all of a sudden, we can move to alleviate the stresses in the
system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T.
OSBORNE:
I
can go on, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, they are looking for our assistance again.
We're looking for analysis, Mr. Speaker; they know. They're just playing games,
we're looking for analysis. The minister knows what we're looking for. Maybe by
the end of June we may get a couple answers but I'm not holding out much hope.
Mr. Speaker, the province witnessed the superb work
completed on the infamous pothole located on Bennet's Road. It has been four
years since the Auditor General recommended a structured maintenance program and
system to track roads that need work.
I ask the minister: Will you table a priority list of
roads that need work?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
E.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't get into, I guess, the tactics, I'll call it,
of the Opposition Leader in terms of Bennett's Road, because what that person
failed to comment on in his interview was that there was a tender that was
awarded last year for the road to be done. He left that out; I wonder why he
left that out?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I need to hear the speaker.
E.
LOVELESS:
Anyway, to the question by the Opposition House Leader, in terms of a list, I
don't have it right now, but I did work on it last night to late hours. We will
have a list coming out very soon that I am looking forward to because there is
going to be work done on our roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, he's a year late, so we'll keep waiting.
We'll wait on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's hard to hear the speakers.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thanks again, Mr. Speaker.
He's obviously a year late and we'll wait like we're
waiting on answers on the budget, we'll wait on answers about the roadwork too.
I guess one of these days we may get some answers; we may get something done in
this province.
Mr. Speaker, the pictures on Bennett's Road speak for
themselves.
The minister's department has been managing the former
Grace site, which has become an eyesore and an embarrassment for the City of St.
John's. The minister's department has been sitting on environment reports and
market evaluations for years. When is the government going to finally act?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
E.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A very good question. That has been sitting around
since 2006, so there have been several administrations that have been dealing
with this. I did an interview on that and I agree that action is required and
we're looking into it; we're looking at all options.
I am going to tell you what I am looking at: the option
that I am concerned about is to make sure that piece of land, I get the fair
market return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J.
WALL:
Mr.
Speaker, in the Budget Speech government announced it would begin to tax
residents to cover the cost of road maintenance. We all remember the public
outcry over the approach that government had in collecting garbage in these
areas.
Does the minister know how much residents can expect to
pay?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member for the question. As we've made it
clear, regionalization is a priority for this government. We want to ensure that
access and accessible services of adequate nature are available to all residents
of this province. If we can do that through a mechanism by which we share some
of the services and everybody has an equitable investment in that process, then
that's something that this government is interested in making sure that services
are available to residents as they need them.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J.
WALL:
I
don't disagree there, Mr. Speaker, but how much was the question.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister know how many residents
who have never gotten a tax bill from government in their lives with respect to
this will now suddenly be expected to pay?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you again for the question. I do welcome the
opportunity to share about 9 per cent of the residents of this province who live
in unincorporated or local service districts who have, at times, been exposed to
reduced services or maybe less than adequate services. So by making this
regionalization claim and hoping to move forward on this we have the opportunity
to provide services to those people in those districts. We want to do that in a
manner which is fair and equitable for all people in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
The
minister speaks loudly when she says that she is going to design a plan before
she goes ahead and does something in relation to LSDs or unincorporated areas.
So that is good.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier informed media that
our province would not be offering a tourism incentive program similar to that
of New Brunswick.
I ask the Premier: Why wasn't this considered by his
government?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Technical difficulty.)
SPEAKER:
You've finally been silenced.
You have to carry on.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for the question. Yesterday,
was the brightest day in our tourism (inaudible) –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
CROCKER:
–
since 2019, the fall of 2019, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you we've heard from
dozens and dozens of tourism operators who are so happy, so relieved to be where
we are. Do you know what we've heard from them about what this government has
done and what this budget did just on Monday of this week? Thirty million
dollars for tourism supports; $25 million for broadband and cellular expansion.
Mr. Speaker, there's so much. I can keep going. I hope
there's a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because the industry is so excited about
this program and we're back on the road to recovery in this wonderful industry
in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
There is indeed a supplementary, Minister.
The Premier's Advisory Council on Tourism recommended
an incentive program – which was the first question that you didn't answer – be
explored for the residents of Atlantic Canada and the region.
I ask the Premier or the minister: Why did he not adopt
this recommendation?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Member opposite would have reached out to the
Chair of the PAC in the last 24 hours and gotten her response to what we've done
for this industry in the last week.
Mr. Speaker, $30 million for tourism supports, and we
will work with the industry. We will work with the industries, Mr. Speaker, to
see how –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, you know they get it so wrong day in and day out. They can't even
celebrate what we've been able to do this week for tourism in our province. I
was rudely interrupted by the Member for CBS, Mr. Speaker, which is not new.
It's been a great week for our industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, again, I hope he's spoken to Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador
because they're as excited as I am for what we've done for tourism this week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
I
can't afford another supplementary to try to get an answer to the incentive
program. I guess it's like the plan, it's somewhere.
The provincial reopening plan made no mention of Marine
Atlantic, which is a critical gateway to the rest of the country.
Has the minister had any discussion with his federal
cousins about reducing Marine Atlantic fees to stimulate tourism and the
movement of essential goods?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
Sorry, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly there are a lot of people over here that
would be wiling to take that question on, but perhaps I'll answer it, given the
fact that I've got a history with that entity and it's perhaps the biggest
driver in, not only our community but I don't think people realize its
importance to the entire province, as you say, for conveyance of passengers and
the conveyance of freight.
What I can say is that we have been in touch with the
federal minister, Omar Alghabra, to talk about the possibility of getting rates
down. We know that there was no increase this year on rates for passengers going
forward. In fact, I think they may have suspended the rate increase that had
been planned for commercial traffic.
I'm also happy to say that they have just announced a
new building for Port aux Basques to put the administrative office there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A.
PARSONS:
On
the Member's question, I will say that doesn't mean we stop there. We must
continue to press the federal government to ensure that Marine Atlantic's rates
are as low as possible and we work on the subsidy recovery.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
The
provincial reopening plan also made no mention of air access to the province,
another critical gateway for our tourism industry. If tourists can't reach the
province, they certainly can't spend money here.
I ask the minister: What is being done to improve air
access to the province and when will we see an air access plan?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
Wow. Again, getting it wrong seems to be the theme across, Mr. Speaker. He
missed the budget. He must have had a nap during the budget on Monday. It was
clearly outlined in the minister's speech.
We've met with HNL. Yesterday afternoon, while most
people were having their lunch, I was talking to PAL, Air Canada and WestJet
sharing our plan. I can tell you what: They, too, were as excited as I am with
that plan.
They will monitor going forward on their bookings.
Tourism operators told me this morning that they're getting calls. We know seats
are filling up. We have future calls coming with WestJet, Air Canada and PAL and
lots of exciting things that are happening.
Again, we outlined in this week's budget that we have a
commitment to air access. The challenge with air access will be, first and
foremost, re-establishing what we had, and then we're going to go looking for
more.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
I
must have missed it. My apologies.
I wonder would the minister table the air access plan
that I missed to the House?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
The
Member opposite, if he was in contact with the stakeholder groups, would know
that the air access plan is something that was done by HNL and the airport
authorities, Mr. Speaker. It's not my plan to table.
Mr. Speaker, if he wants me to table the budget, I can
certainly table it again, because it was clearly outlined on Monday that we have
a plan for air access in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This reminds me of the game show
Jeopardy! where you get an answer and we have to figure out what the
question was.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the responsible minister: Do you
know how much revenue will be generated from the implementation of a sugar tax?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I believe in the budget documents – I'm going by memory
– it's $9 million per year. I think that's what the budget documents clearly
outline.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also ask the minister: Do you know if the revenue
from the sugar tax will simply go into general revenues, or will it be
redirected to healthier food choices, such as in schools?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much. I've already answered this question, but I'm happy to do so
again, Mr. Speaker.
Taxation revenue goes to the general revenue. It goes
to general revenue, but there is program spending that we do in multiple
departments to assist with better, healthier eating choices and better,
healthier outcomes. I'll use an example, Mr. Speaker: we've given, in this
budget, a million dollars to Kids Eat Smart; we've also done a tax credit to
encourage physical activity. That's clearly outlined in the budget as well.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I take that answer as meaning the full revenue
generated from the sugar tax will go totally to Health.
S.
COADY:
(Inaudible.)
P.
DINN:
That's what I want to (inaudible).
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They're clearly having some trouble across the aisle,
Mr. Speaker, in understanding the budgeting process, so I'll try it again.
Taxation revenue goes to general revenue and then there
are stipends that go, during the budget process, to each of the departments. As
you know from Estimates, you'll know what particular department gets which
particular funding. As I've just given the answer to, $1 million, for example,
for Kids Eat Smart; I think that is under the Health budget. We have poverty
reduction and that's under CSSD. It depends on which program you're talking
about as to which department is actually the one responsible for it, but
taxation goes to general revenue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I wasn't talking about the taxation; I'm talking
about the total funding that we're going to get from this initiative.
Minister: Do you know how much will be saved and how
many jobs will be cut by implementing a new integrated corporate services
function for the four regional health authorities?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The back-office functions across the regional health
authorities lend themselves to consolidation. Indeed, the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port dedicated two years of his life to looking at shared
services, particularly on the issue of inventory and stock control.
We, on this side of the House, have not yet decided
whether or not that will be limited to the regional health authorities or,
indeed, incorporate government entities, in general, or government departments
as well. Until those kind of policy decisions are made, the discussion is a bit
premature. I'm sure we would be happy to keep you informed as we go.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to hear the minister say on the tourism that
he did get some answers and they spoke to the groups involved. Well, that's part
of doing your job I guess. With 20 questions, we finally got an answer.
Motor Registration Division is one of the busiest
registries and holds a magnitude of personal information.
Minister, do you know if there's been any analysis
completed to privatize Motor Registration?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately they got it wrong again. In the budget, we did indicate
that we'll be going out to the markets for joint solutions, meaning that we will
talk to business, we will talk to unions, we will talk to co-operatives and
we'll talk to social enterprises to see if they can provide a better solution to
how we actually operate the registries.
I listened yesterday intently to a question by a Member
opposite. In the question, he actually said there are challenges with
registries. So I'll lay it out there for that again, but that will be the
process that we will go through.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Are there plans to
extend the – or some form of the sugar-sweetened tax to other forms of food that
are sugar sweetened, or what we would call junk food, fast food, that are high
in calorie and low in nutrients?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much. A very good question, Mr. Speaker.
We are taking the first step. There are many
jurisdictions around the world that do offer the sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
We will learn from their experiences, including in the United States; we'll be a
leader in Canada.
Whether we go further, Mr. Speaker, we'll do the
analysis in the next number of years to see how the implementation – it doesn't
come until April 1, 2022, but then we'll look and see if there are further
things we can do.
Again, I do emphasize, Mr. Speaker, there are concerns
around the consumption of sugar and we'll be continuing to look at how we can
improve the health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality to page 32 of the Estimates book,
section 2.8.02, Women and Gender Equality, line 10, Grants and Subsidies, which
if the description is accurate, is for “grants to equality-seeking
organizations, including Women's Centres, Regional Coordinating Committees
Against Violence and Indigenous Organizations ….”
Would the minister be able to explain to me why the
amount budgeted this year is $405,000 less than what was budgeted last year?
I have copies here, if people want them, with the
highlighted areas.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank my colleague, the hon. Member.
I also am honoured to answer my very first question
here in Question Period in the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
PARSONS:
We
certainly had a discussion yesterday. I want to again confirm for the Member and
for the House of Assembly that there are absolutely no cuts to the department of
Women and Gender Equality.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
PARSONS:
As
of a matter of fact, the Premier campaigned on this and he came through. Almost
$500,000 was allocated to the department just last year – we see the commitment
again – to go to programs, varying-necessity programs, of course, such as the
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program, which is well needed, as we know,
particularly in Labrador.
Again, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, there are no cuts
to this department. Again, we're certainly happy to work – and the Member is
always welcome to come to the department; we can collaborate on anything he
wants to.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
The
Premier refused to be transparent about the work in progress of the Rate
Mitigation Team.
I ask: What is the plan for ratepayers if no deal can
be reached with the federal Liberal government before the clock runs out?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would contest the preamble of the Member's question.
While the question is good, it's not about refusing to be transparent.
Obviously, if you're in the middle of a complex negotiation, you're not going to
go and show your cards to the public. Absolutely the worst thing you could do is
to go and show your hand while you're in the middle of it. That's not what we
are going to do.
What I can say, to reiterate the points that have been
made by the Premier, is that we have extremely capable and competent people that
are actively and furiously engaged in rate mitigation talks in Ottawa. We are
committed to this. We do know that there's a timeline. We will continue to do
the work that is necessary. We're confident that we can come forward with a rate
mitigation plan for the citizens of this province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West for a quick question.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The budget boasts about bold ideas about moving
consumers of this province from oil heat to electric heat.
Given the refusal of transparency about the
negotiations, are residents supposed to blindly trust that they won't be facing
increased costs of living because of this decision?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I reiterate the point that I made: We are not going to
go and jeopardize the citizens of this province by laying out the plan. That is
absolutely the worst idea that you can do.
The reality is that we have been forced into a tough
position because of the Muskrat Falls Project; we are forced to engage in rate
mitigation.
I hear some comments from the Members opposite, they're
the ones that put us in this mess and what we are trying to do is to get us out
of that mess.
Again, I see some heads nodding with us. I'm glad to
finally see –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
A.
PARSONS:
–
that they acknowledge that we are trying to clean up their mess. What we can
promise them is that we will leave no stone unturned as we move forward.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order, please!
Enough from both sides.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act, Bill 20.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The background to this petition is as follows: The
Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure.
WHEREAS many commute outside the Avalon on a daily
basis for work as well as for commercial, residential and tourism growth in our
region has increased the volume of traffic on this highway;
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant
piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic to and from
the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr. Speaker, I drive this – I'm not going to say I
drive this road regularly but I go in and I drive across it a fair amount. I do
thank the government last year for doing four kilometres, but the road is 22
kilometres long. It's about seven or eight kilometres left on the road and to do
half of it don't mean anything to the people, the truck drivers and I'm going to
say the crab workers driving the trucks as well going to and from the plants
distributing crab.
We have an industry in Bay Bulls where the marine
terminal is; a proposed one in Fermeuse. We have tourism; they're doing the
Irish Loop. There are two people that remind me: one towing campers and the
other guys that are driving motorcycles, and cars and vehicles as well. But when
they go in there, it's not safe to be driving at times.
I'm not saying the road is totally gone because it's
not, but in the areas that you have to drive on the left side of the road, and
it's not like a small community road where you're going 30 or 40 kilometres, the
speed limit is probably 80 or 90 kilometres. The road needs some work.
I really think that they should go in and drive it.
There has been ministers in there and they've looked at it, but, hopefully, they
can have that plan to put it in their budget to be able to complete the rest of
this road so that we can move on to get to some other business in the district.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
E.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to respond to that and say to the Member, thank
you for that petition and I'll take it under consideration because I don't want
the Opposition House Leader getting upset or anything like that. I want to make
note that the hon. Member that just presented the petition, we also had a side
conversation about that exact petition so it is not going unnoticed. I just want
to thank him for that.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll make sure my House Leader is listening to me.
This petition is for fairer electricity rates for
Northern Labrador. I presented it a couple times now, the last sitting I also
presented it.
The rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are
cost prohibitive using electric heat; therefore, the rates charged 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.
Above the ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat
Mountains residents pay six times the rate of Lake Melville residents, jumping
up to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The 1,000 kilowatt hour ceiling prevents many
residents from being able to afford to heat their homes with electric heat.
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 are needed for Northern
Labrador 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.
Now, as I said, I have presented this many times and I
actually did get a response from the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The level of chatter is getting a little too loud.
L.
EVANS:
–
Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology last week. I did find his response a
little bit disappointing because there's so much value in having the ability to
heat your house. In actual fact, in my two most northern communities, a lot of
families cannot do that because of the distance to haul wood that has to be
chopped up and brought into the house. Long distances are very, very expensive.
It's impacting our seniors who don't have the physical ability, it's impacting
women who don't have the physical ability and, also, people with disabilities or
injuries or health issues.
I was wondering why the Premier wouldn't jump on this
opportunity to do some real constructive work towards reconciliation and I asked
about that. Is it because they don't want to actually help us because they're
looking at all of Labrador's electricity rates?
The Minister of Industry was very honest. He did say,
and I'll quote from Hansard: “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's the reality here.”
I don't think Labrador, especially my district who were
not the end-users for Muskrat Falls – there was a commitment made to us, that if
we're not the end-users and we don't use Muskrat Falls's electricity, we will
not have to pay (inaudible) Muskrat Falls.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and
Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to respond to this as I have done before.
Contrary, sometimes, to what – the conversation is about not responding;
certainly, this will be the second time that I have responded to this petition.
I think just to add upon what I said previously, yes, obviously in Newfoundland
and Labrador we are looking at electricity rates across the entire province. A
lot of the questions we get every day are on rate mitigation.
We are faced with huge challenges, both in Labrador,
rural Newfoundland – everywhere when it comes to electricity, and a lot of that
is generated by Muskrat Falls. We are going to need to do some serious work.
It's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate the decision that
was made before we got here and it's something we grapple with every day.
Now, I will point out that this 1,000 kilowatt-hour
monthly lifeline block that was referenced here, the cost of that already right
now, I'll say, far exceeds any of the revenue that comes from it. There is
generally a revenue shortfall that is already on the go and it's called the
rural deficit.
I will point out a couple of facts here because it is
something felt by everybody. Having visited the North Coast with my former
colleague and having a chance to go around, I absolutely appreciate the
challenges that are faced by Labrador. Again, I also appreciate the challenges
that are faced all over this province. I will point out that right now when we
look at the rural deficit and some of the subsidies – I'll just point to a
couple of things: remote domestic diesel rates on the Island average 14.96 cents
per kilowatt and Labrador domestic diesel rates average 6.72 cents per kilowatt;
Island Interconnected System residential customers pay 13.06 cents per kilowatt
and Labrador Interconnected pays 3.38 cents.
SPEAKER:
The
minister's time has expired.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I bring forward a petition again today. It's 208
signatures of seniors looking for senior support in Labrador West.
The reason for the petition: The need for senior
accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is steadily
increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility of
needing to leave their homes in order afford to live or receive adequate care.
Additional housing options, including assisted-living facilities like those
found throughout the rest of the province for seniors, have become a requirement
for Labrador West. The requirements are currently not being met.
WHEREAS the seniors of our province are entitled to
peace and comfort in their homes, where they have spent a lifetime contributing
to its prosperity and growth; and
WHEREAS the means for the increasing the number of
senior residents of Labrador West to happily age in place are not currently
available in the region;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
allow seniors in Labrador West to age in place by providing affordable housing
options for seniors and assisted-living care facilities –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's getting very difficult to hear the speaker.
J.
BROWN:
–
for those who require care.
Mr. Speaker, like I said last time, seniors in Labrador
West – it's a fast-growing population of seniors. These are people who some of
them were actually born in Labrador West and have lived there their entire
lives. They have children and grandchildren and they want to see their
grandchildren grow up.
Like I said before, the big part of it is they want to
see their grandchildren grow up in the community that they helped build. They
don't want to leave; they don't want to go to a facility in another community.
The nearest community that would have a facility to them is 600 kilometres away
in Lake Melville. Or, if that's unavailable, then their next option is Deer Lake
or Gander. These individuals don't want to be separated from their family. They
want to be able to enjoy their retired years in a community that has their
family and their friends surrounding them.
We are in a really interesting place in the history of
Labrador West that we actually require seniors care, some level 3 care. We do
have a long-term care facility. It does have a few beds but it is not adequate
or the correct type of care that some of these people need. We've always had
trouble with home care as well. I'm sure the Minister of Health has heard me say
it before about the constraints on the home care workers in Labrador West. We
have very few but we have a great need for it. So if any home care workers are
listening: Come to Labrador West.
Right now, we do need this extra support, we do need to
look at a facility, but we also need to look at some kind of housing options for
seniors as well. They are living in older homes that do require a lot of work,
especially if you're a widow or anything like that. It's hard to maintain a
large four-bedroom house as a single individual on a fixed income. We need a
whole broad-spectrum look at this.
The seniors in my community have been pushing, they've
been asking. They need some assistance and they would really appreciate a close
microscopic look at the unique challenges of Labrador West and providing there.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Member's time has expired.
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development for a response.
J.
ABBOTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a quick response to the Member's petition around
seniors and seniors' housing. The Member and I have had some early discussions
around this and related issues. We, as a province, need to address the issues
that are certainly in both the preamble and the citations in the petition.
One of the things that our agency will be doing,
through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, is to develop a
housing and homelessness plan for the next couple of years. The issues that the
Member raised will be addressed in that plan. In the meantime, we will be
working on any particular issues that pop up which we can address while we're
waiting for that plan to be developed.
Thank you, Sir.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the following petition I'm going to
present is – this is the background: There is something wrong with our health
care delivery in Newfoundland and Labrador when 90,000 people do not have access
to a family doctor, and also cannot see nurse practitioners so they can get
timely care, catch problems earlier and avoid worse outcomes, tragic suffering
and higher costs.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as
follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make access to family doctors and
nurse practitioners an urgent priority, creating a province-wide program of
primary health care teams: where patients receive comprehensive care; where
family physicians can transition away from solo practice to team practice; where
nurse practitioners, registered nurses and other providers can be connected and
integrated with family doctors in team structures; where patients can have
continuous relationships with their own most responsible provider; where the
progress we have made in electronic medical records and virtual care can be
harvested for integrated team care; and where the focus can shift to wellness
and disease prevention. And also by: reducing the proportion of unattached
patients in the province to less than 5 per cent; and retaining 75 per cent of
Memorial's medical graduates who pursue family medicine.
Mr. Speaker, that petition could be read for any
district in this province, by my guess. Right now, obviously, I'm the Member for
CBS, and in CBS it is the single biggest issue facing the residents. There are
lots of issues out there, lots of needs; we all get that. The biggest issue in
my district right now – and I was asked during the election what it was – was
the family doctor shortage. It was one of the main priorities when I went to the
doors. I hear it regularly.
I get emails – I don't know how many more Members get
them; I get emails almost – I don't get 10; I get dozens a day, but I get them
regularly: I can't find a doctor; any suggestion where to find a family doctor?
How do I proceed? I can't get a prescription filled; I can't get this done. It's
about primary health care. You get that care, that prevents our acute care
facilities and our emergency rooms from being built up. That's the problem we're
faced with. You go to any emergency room, it's seven, eight, 10 hours. My guess
is the majority of those people in there, with that many people without a family
doctor, are waiting for something that could be done by a nurse practitioner or
their family doctor.
I heard the Minister of Health over there at times say
the magic number of 640 doctors is required to service the province. We can't
control the working hours, their lifestyles. Things have changed. It's not the
way it was years ago when people were doctors working six days a week. People
have lives, and I understand the quality of life is everything.
Maybe we need to have 900 doctors to be able to do the
work of the 600. It doesn't cost any more if they're only doing half the time.
We need bodies on the ground; we need boots on the ground. Does that mean nurse
practitioners? Does that mean a mixture of both? Whatever it takes.
Right now, when you call a family doctor in my
district, you're lucky to get in in four to five weeks. That's a phone call.
Heaven forbid if you need to go in in person. Most times they end up out in
emergency rooms.
I think it's a very important issue. It's one that's
facing not only my District of Conception Bay South, but the 39 other districts.
I call upon government to give this some serious consideration.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to stand to speak on the amendment that was
introduced yesterday in the House of Assembly by the Official Opposition. This
is the amendment that's usually put in on a regular basis by all Opposition to
have another chance to speak on the budget itself, and I will take that
opportunity again to speak today on some issues that have been brought to my
attention and on behalf of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands.
First of all, I just want to, again, thank the people
of Humber - Bay of Islands for their support and for the continued support of
all of the residents in Humber - Bay of Islands through their volunteer
activities, the town councils and the other activities that are put through on a
volunteer basis in Humber - Bay of Islands. A lot of youth groups and I know
there is softball over in Gillams, and look at Meadows with the hockey rink in
Meadows and the rink in Cox's Cove. There's a lot of volunteer work done in the
district and I just want to thank all of the individuals that do that.
Mr. Speaker, again, when I was home last weekend the
biggest issue I heard again was with the last election. I went around to a few
places last weekend and it was brought to my attention on a number of occasions
about the issues of the last election. I know I had a very frank discussion with
the minister yesterday, a very good discussion I had with the minister, and
thanks for being upfront and forthright, and that's always respected to have a
very frank discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to raise concerns on the
issues of the election. The biggest concern I have – and I know my colleague
from Mount Pearl - Southlands put it up – what if we put in the legislation,
what if there's a new election act put in place, what if we do it? What if it's
the best election act in Canada, what if? But what if we have a Commissioner for
Legislative Standards who refuses to follow the act, what happens? What Happens?
P.
LANE:
Nothing.
E.
JOYCE:
That's my biggest concern, that we have an Officer of the House of Assembly who
is answerable to this House of Assembly, who has the attitude, and through his
actions and through the inaction of this House of Assembly and the Management
Commission in this House of Assembly that he can do what he like.
He can take votes over the phone – no one else can. The
seniors in Humber - Bay of Islands can't do that, but he can. He can walk away
with the act. He can hand-deliver ballots, but out in Corner Brook you're not
allowed to do that. The DROs out in Corner Brook weren't allowed to hand-deliver
ballots, you had to get them put through your mail. But he can take them, walk
around and hand them around.
The most glaring thing in the last election, Mr.
Speaker, that you find is you see the extension every time; every time there was
an extension. I always asked the question – and, of course, I'll be upfront, the
dealings I had with the former Premier and the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards – what was going on behind the scenes that we don't know about? What
was going on behind the scenes? I know full well, in writing, before the former
Premier was involved with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, was this
Premier involved? Was the Liberal Party involved?
The reason why I question that is I know the past, but
the other reason why I question that, the big reason why I question that, if you
really want to represent the people of this province, especially the seniors, a
lot of people with disabilities who couldn't vote, when you have a government
who just got elected and there's no action taken against an Officer of the House
of Assembly who admitted – admitted – taking ballots by phone; admitted
delivering ballots, admitted doing it and there's no interaction, I have to
question: Why is there no action taken by the government?
There are two reasons: one, they're elected so let's
just bury it; two, there's information that if there was ever an investigation
done which was asked by this House of Assembly, if there was ever an
investigation done there would be information brought out that would be very
embarrassing to some people that was associated. I'm convinced. I am convinced
because I said before and I –
P.
LANE:
I
am too.
E.
JOYCE:
What?
P.
LANE:
I
am too.
E.
JOYCE:
I
am convinced because I can assure you, as sure as I'm here, that when the
Opposition Party and the NDP asked for a meeting and there was a meeting agreed,
and then all of a sudden a letter from this guy, whoever is with the Liberal
Party, he says, they shouldn't meet; there's no meeting, there's something going
on. There is something going on.
Why an Officer of the House of Assembly, when you have
seniors holding up to a window their driver's licence and have someone with an
extension rod, clicking the camera and we don't think there's anything wrong
with that. Where seniors even come to my door, coming to my door with their
information asking me to get a ballot filled out because they don't have a
computer, and we're just going to brush that under because the Liberals won the
majority and we're scared what we might find out. We're scared what we might
find out. It's appalling actually. It's actually appalling.
I'll tell you a story about that, Mr. Speaker. We sent
in about 150 or170 ballots by fax. People never got it. The day before, I
started calling and I'll admit I gave their direct number to the Chief Electoral
Officer. I gave the direct number; people started calling. Do you know what
happened when people started calling directly? The day before it was suppose to
be finished, do you know what they said? Oh my God, that's on the desk here. I
don't know why that wasn't processed.
All of a sudden, oh my God, someone got it. They just
called me; the ballot is on the way. Well, the deadline is tomorrow. The next
thing, you know what happens? The extension is made again because there were 150
to 175 ballots found on someone's desk siting there, that for a week to 10 days
I was trying to get – where are they? How come?
I finally wrote Bruce Chaulk. I have the email –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the Member not to (inaudible).
E.
JOYCE:
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Sorry.
I wrote the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and
said here's where they were faxed from, here's where they were faxed to, here's
the date and here's the confirmation. All of a sudden, boom, they all started
receiving them the next couple of days. That night, 9:30, 10 at night, people
were getting calls at home saying we just found your information; we're going to
start sending out your ballots. Everybody in this room can tell me that's
proper? That's fair?
I don't care. If the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards can come in and justify everything that was done, that it was proper,
there was no interference with it – he made mistakes with it – let's take it and
move on. But until we, as a Legislature, do call in the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards to find out why he was allowed to deliver ballots, yet
back home the DROs weren't allowed to do it – they're not allowed to do it
unless they get an official request for it. They're not allowed.
We can't even go into a seniors' home and say there's a
senior who wants a ballot. No, not allowed. That senior has to call in to get
that person to come to their home. But the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards can walk around to a few of his friends or his buddies, he said, and
all of a sudden, protect himself I would say – protect himself if this ever came
up in the House. Those people who received the ballots can't talk about it
because you received a ballot; you compromised yourself. Smart guy – a very
smart guy.
This is my last point on this. I will never give up on
it because I've seen the look in the seniors' faces; I've seen the anguish. If
we, as legislators, Members who have a fiduciary duty to hold the government
accountable, do not get the Commissioner for Legislative Standards in this room
so we can ask him questions, so we can get to the bottom of this or have an
independent investigation done outside, we are not doing our duties; we are
failing. I always said, if you're going to fail on something that's so important
as a vote, what else are you failing on and what else do we need?
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General here
could do a report on anybody, any department? We're allowed to get that person
or entity in front of the Public Accounts, but we can't get the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards. There's something wrong.
P.
LANE:
Who
reports to us.
E.
JOYCE:
Who
reports to this House.
If we can't have him in front of the Public Accounts,
the government is not going to allow him to come to the House of Assembly, so
what happens? The seniors that turned around and couldn't vote, the ones who
never received ballots, the ones who had to hold their driver's licences up, the
ones who came to my door – and I'm sure everybody in this Legislature went
through the same thing trying to help people out, to fill out ballots and try to
get their ballots in. If we don't get answers for all those people there, we are
failing.
I can tell this government, and make no bones about it;
it shows lack of courage to get to the truth, whatever it is. It may not change
the outcome, because I don't think anybody wants to go through another election
right now, but it does show lack of courage by this government when they will
not get to the truth and to the bottom. If everything can be justified and if
there was no inside dealing or backroom dealing with the Liberal executive, with
the co-chairs of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Premier
of this province, then let's accept it, but at least we have to get the answers.
If we don't get the answers, we are failing. The
seniors that we had to try to get ballots for, the ones who never got it and the
ones who couldn't even register in the first place, Mr. Speaker, we should stand
up and apologize to them because we did not follow through on the people who
died in wars so we can vote. We're letting this happen.
Honestly, I stand so strong on this here. If we can
prove that there was absolutely no fault to why the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards can deliver ballots, but they can't do it in Corner Brook, why you can
accept some over the phone and no one else can – there's a rumour people went up
to the office the last day and voted at the office – why there are so many
ballots not even sent out –
P.
LANE:
The
scrutineers.
E.
JOYCE:
Why
the scrutineers weren't even allowed to – just to let you know, and the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands brought it up, I was the one who demanded. Until I
demanded in emails that we were allowed to have a scrutineer and he was breaking
the act, that's when he finally said: Okay, we'll do it remotely. The only thing
you could see was the actual rejected ballots. You could not see – it is right
in the act. It is in the act that you could look at every ballot. If you go on
election day, where you're a scrutineer, every ballot is taken up and shown:
Here, everybody agree? Put it in the pile. That's in the act.
Canada goes around this world and trains people to do
that. They actually train people how to run an election. They train people, yet
here in Newfoundland and Labrador the Commissioner for Legislative Standards can
break that act. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what they did, but I
can tell you they broke the act. The minute you break the act you should be
accountable to this House of Assembly.
I heard from the Commissioner talking about, well, b'y,
it was a pandemic election. I asked one question and I asked this in writing. I
put this in writing to him. How many of us had Zoom meetings? How many of us saw
documents with Zoom meetings? What's wrong with having a Zoom with the
scrutineers and holding the ballots up to the camera? It's done everywhere;
we're doing it now. We're doing it remotely as we speak right now, but for some
reason the Commissioner for Legislative Standards has taken it upon his own
initiative to say it's a pandemic, I'm allowed to break the rules.
That's why I say to the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, I'm sure there is going to be great legislation coming in to change the
Elections Act. I'm sure of that. There is no doubt; I think the Opposition and
the independents will ensure there will be great legislation. What is the
safeguard? If we don't hold the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, who did
not follow the legislation – what is going to be in it that is going to be
different that it can't happen again? That is the question I'd like to ask. Why
aren't we, as legislators, holding him accountable for it? If we don't do it –
and I'll say it in my last word on that – I can tell every parliamentarian
that's in this House of Assembly, we are not doing our fiduciary responsibility
of holding Officers of this House of Assembly accountable.
I ask one more question: What if we knew – and this is
just hypothetical, very hypothetical; I'm just using this as an example. What if
we knew an Officer of the House of Assembly broke the law and stole $5,000? What
would happen? They'd be gone through the door. There'd be a motion in this House
the next morning.
What is the difference of taking away someone's right
to vote, which people died for, and we're not dealing with it? It's going to be
a black mark on this Legislature and this Assembly and the Members in this House
if we don't get to the bottom of it. If the Commissioner comes in here and he
can explain and give all the information, what happened, and explains, that's
fine, let's all just stand up and say okay. But until that's done, until the
person can say why he broke the act and why he thinks he had the authority to
break the act, we are not doing our duty as legislators. I, for one, every
opportunity I get I'll speak about that, and I will have lots of opportunities,
I can assure you.
I know I'm not on the Committee, and I understand that.
Me and the minister had a great chat about that and I thank the minister for
that. I accept that, not a problem. Not a problem. No issue with that
whatsoever. But I can assure you, I've been in this Legislature for a long, long
time, when there's something that concerns the people of Humber - Bay of
Islands, and they were so sincere and hurt, I will bring it up. I am ashamed,
like I told the people, I am ashamed to be a part of a Legislature that will not
hold an Officer of the House of Assembly accountable. It is shameful.
I take responsibility because somewhere along the line
I am part of this Legislature. We hear the minister saying let the courts take
care of it. I can tell the minister that that's the legal part of it. But I can
tell you the person knocking on my door with his information for his wife who
can't get out of the House will not be solved in court. The only way that's
going to be resolved is in this House of Assembly. If we don't do that we're
failing those people and we are failing the right to vote. What's going to stop
it the next time?
We stand up hear, and I hear people talking about
thanking – and we all should – our veterans for the service so we can vote. What
would our veterans think if they knew that we had people, seniors, who supported
them in the Second World War and the First World War and the Korean War and
other things – a lot of their relatives – found out that their siblings, their
grandkids could not vote because there are irregularities in the Elections Act
that weren't followed; that this election was not given proper care, was not
given proper due care by the government at the time, by the Chief Electoral
Officer at the time and they couldn't vote and they were begging to vote? What
would they say? Do you know what they would say? They would could in here and
they would let us know what they really think. Because I can assure you that
they would not stand for it – they would not stand for it.
I'll close on that, Mr. Speaker. I'll have an
opportunity in Petitions to speak about this part again. I know this is a budget
debate and I know this is an amendment to the budget. Mr. Speaker, usually when
there's a budget you can speak to any issue that's pertaining to your district.
One of the biggest issues that I hear on the regular basis, and still hear it –
and I'm not complaining because I happened to win and I'm here. Win or lose;
I've won more times, I've lost before in sports and I lost in politics. Winning
or losing is not the point. The point is when you leave, can you leave and say
you did the best that you could do.?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E.
JOYCE:
My
last words to the government: You won the election, why are you so afraid to
have an independent body who will bring the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards in this House of Assembly so we can get to the bottom of this and so
we can go back to the siblings of veterans, who died in the war, and say: Here's
what happened, but here's what we're going to do to make sure it doesn't happen
again? Until we do that, we're failing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
on the most democratic right and that is to vote.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
E.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very proud to be able to speak to this budget and
to the amendment that's before us today.
Before I start – well, I guess I'm starting – but I
would like to draw attention to all the Member in this House of Assembly. Many
of you have probably received an email or a message from a lady named Rosalie
Belbin out of Red Bay, and I promised her today that I would start my speech:
Hello, Rosalie, to you.
For those of you who have been very lucky to visit her,
I would encourage others to do it. I drove down the other day with my wife and
my dog Kracker, it was a good eight-hour drive and we stopped into Rosalie's.
There is a shrine to you, all of you. There are little photos there, there are
messages and probably the one that you all need to beat is a bobble head that
Mr. Ches Crosbie gave her that sits on her counter. The Member for St. George's
- Humber, his photo is there, and there are other memorabilia.
I would encourage you to try to up the ante and see
what you can do to get to the front of her shrine to all of us, because she is
watching there. She is a dedicated follower of this House of Assembly. You got
to support your fans. I put that out there, Rosalie, to you.
I will now turn to something I think that has
captivated, in a very sombre way, myself and I think everyone in this House and
I think right across the country, that's the revelation of the sudden discovery
of 215 young lives in a mass grave next to a residential school in Kamloops, BC.
I think we just have to try to grapple how can this happen in our country. What
could people have possibly been thinking, with the basis and the times and the
things that we deal with now, our own sense of values? That shock has certainly
– you can feel it, you can see it. I think it's up to all of us to see what we
can do to make sure that such an incident, not only never happens again but that
we do something to try to address the pain and the sorrow that so many people
have felt.
One thing that I've heard from many wise people – my
background is environmental sciences and we often talk about sustainable
development and I'm always trying to explain that. Many years ago, somebody
pointed out to me that – this is from an Indigenous perspective or analogy – I
found it was probably the best definition of sustainable development when they
said to me: When you make a decision you have to think seven generations out.
You'll often hear this. Carolyn Bennett says this a lot, I notice, in her
commentary in her role as a federal minister.
I think if we just think about where we were 100 years
ago when these residential school systems and up to, frankly, not that long ago,
the shocking implications of generation after generation after generation, and
you hear these terms intergenerational trauma. I know myself in my years in
Labrador, and when I first started meeting and speaking and hearing stories from
people, it ranged. It ranged from people who found it such a traumatic
experience they couldn't even speak about it.
For others it was less arduous and it was certainly
something that they found difficult, you can imagine; you can't imagine any of
us leaving our homes, leaving our families at a very young age, some of them
three, four, five years of age, and went off to school in our situation, for
example, one that I know well is the one in Northwest River. A lot of children
from the Coast came there. For some it was a good experience, for others it was
very difficult, but for all of them it was a traumatic separation from their
parents and their families. We really need to figure and find our way through
this. I hope we can find the strength and give it the attention it really
deserves.
Given we're speaking about a budget amendment, I did
want to talk a little bit about the budget. I'm going to step back on the budget
a little bit, and I commend the government at least – I'm hearing this overture
– they're going to move, with legislation, to work towards a balanced budget.
I just draw reference to an analogy that I'm very –
it's not an analogy, it's just a good comparison. Here's a statement from March
9, 2021, from the Nunatsiavut Government, and here's their opening line: “The
Nunatsiavut Government's 2021-22 balanced budget, delivered today during the
first-ever virtual sitting of the Nunatsiavut Assembly ….” Key word: balanced,
right off the bat. I feel it's very good, it's going to be important that we
reach and achieve this idea of a balanced budget. Because, frankly, thinking
again, seven generations out, why are we racking up a deficit now that our
children and their children and so on are going to have to deal with? Frankly,
that's what we are faced with.
I think we would all argue that we currently have a
spending problem. I would put it out there that I would suggest it's really an
historic spending problem. It's been the inability or the lack of attention, or
that short four-year, or even less, mandate that we're all under. We have to
start thinking longer term. We have to start thinking about these determinations
and these decisions and what it means for those to come.
I remember when I sat in Cabinet, which I enjoyed very
much, I just imagine that very first budget in 2016 and when the, then, Finance
minister came and explained to us what each of us needed to do and the serious
cuts that were required, the drastic action that was needed to just hold off
those who were looking for their money.
At that time, I think, our interest payments were
something like 10.5, almost 11 per cent. Well, we're just marginally higher than
that now; still struggling with it being the second line item in our budget. It
comes before Education; all that we do to educate our children, ourselves, as we
go on to secondary or post-secondary education. We have this deficit payment
dealing right smack in front of us, and as we've come to learn through Dame Moya
Greene, it's much worse than we even imagined.
Another criticism I have on the budget, and I guess
what I'm alluding to, is it would be nice to see a balanced budget; the sooner
we get there, the better. There is going to be pain and we're just going to have
to realize, again, why we're doing this. We have to take the politics out of it,
we have to take our own personal survival out of this. We have to recognize
where we are in history and we have to support this province as it goes forward
and everyone else who will occupy it in the years to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
TRIMPER:
I'm
always looking at words and how people write things. I would love to get my
hands on whoever writes our Budget Speeches. I know the Finance Minister does a
great job speaking to it, but just think about all the questions that all of us
have received since Monday at 2 o'clock. It's relating to confusion around the
numbers that we're hearing. I have it in front of me, several examples, and I'm
just going to grab one – one that I'm very appreciative of, by the way.
Just a little side story: Back in 2007, there was a
very serious recommendation put before government, at the time, that there was
needed to have a facility to provide mental health services in Labrador,
recognizing the challenge. That was 2007. The person who wrote that contacted me
a couple of nights ago – it was a really nice message – and sent me their quote
from 2007 with that recommendation. I put a little Post-it the other day,
because last Saturday we finally started pouring concrete on the new six-bed
mental health wing. It's going to be culturally, and from an Indigenous
perspective, designed and incorporated with a lot of themes that I feel would
really be a great start.
He was recognizing that and he said: Wow, 14 years
later, there we are. Well, I looked at these – I guess they're little key
messages and so on, and then I look at the Budget Speech. It draws reference to,
this year, that there's going to be “$4.8 million spent for the completion of
the new mental health unit in Happy Valley-Goose Bay ….” All great, but I have
to tell you how many people contacted me to say: Is this something new? What is
this? I thought we were already building something.
I would like to see us organize this whole budget from
– and, again, I recognize the $4.8 million; this is what was committed to last
year in the budget when it was started. What we should be saying is: As part of
the ongoing construction, $4.8 million is going to be allocated this year. What
I'm trying to do is say: Let's carry on and support all of those good things
that are happening, but if there's some new initiative, let's put that in there;
let's put in a cap. box or something. If I didn't have six years of experience
in this, I would be finding myself going to each one of these items and saying:
Is this new? What does that mean? I can only imagine what some of the new
Members are trying to go through as you sort this out.
I was very lucky on Monday, as part of the lockdown, to
have two members from the Minister's staff, which were invaluable for me. It was
the best two hours I've spent this week with them, because they were able to
help clarify so much of what I was reading. I would urge that in future budgets,
let's separate out: Here's something new, sugar tax; here's something that is
part of what we promised over the last year or two. We're just telling you now:
We're carrying on with that.
I have many other examples, but I feel that would be a
good way for us to help take away a lot of the confusion. We could just focus
on: Where is this government going? What's the new policy shifts? Where are they
allocating the money? I think that would be a great help.
I did want to mention – I brought up a couple of the
items this morning in Estimates – and I'm using the word nimbleness: We've got
to be quick. Look at how this jurisdiction, how the world responded to a
COVID-19 pandemic. Within weeks we had shutdown, we had locked down; we had
shifted to number one priority: make everyone safe. If we could only find that
same kind of nimbleness and quick reflex to be able to respond to other
situations that come upon us.
I'm just going to put out an example, I raised it this
morning with the minister and we had a good discussion with it, but I'd like to
bring it broader here to the floor.
Has anybody tried to go and buy a two-by-four lately?
You might have noticed that the price of a two-by-four or plywood sheets, these
things have tripled, quadrupled in price. I think a sheet of plywood now is
running about $100. It is up about four times what it was last year.
Look to what's going on in Alberta. Alberta has just
shifted itself – it has a structure where it has its own Crown lands and they
just changed legislation to allow a doubling of their stumpage and their royalty
rates. That's the amount of money that the Crown is paid or someone who owns
those trees, that are going to go into wood products, that they would actually
be able to recover.
The markup that we're seeing is not at the stumpage or
the royalty rate. So whoever owns the trees, whoever cuts the trees is not
making the money. The bottleneck is in the processing, it is in that secondary
facility aspect of the whole process before the retailer buys that two-by-four
or that sheet of plywood.
Why can't we follow Alberta's lead? They just doubled
their stumpage rates so they're making a nice windfall now with the high
building material prices. It is not affecting what the retailer pays because if
you look at some of the examples, and I sent it to my colleagues in Opposition
and to the minister this morning, out of Alberta a lot of these factories and so
on, their profits are through the roof. What they're finding is that because of
supply and demand, the fees are way up but their commodities that are going into
that process line are still very low, relatively. They could easily absorb it.
Our own wood products, we are underselling them.
It was raised this morning, it was suggested that maybe
we should lower them. In fact, that's not where the problem is. The problem is
in the factories, so many of them are shutdown, they're getting back in gear and
– anyway, I see it as an opportunity.
One the other day I brought up about Nalcor, myself and
my colleague from Labrador West had what we call the height-of-land summit the
other day. I would invite everyone in this room, if you've not ever been to
Churchill Falls to please go. I thank Nalcor Energy very much for hosting us.
Both the Labrador West MHA and myself spent a good day and a half exploring a
whole bunch of ideas. We both have a lot of experience in that facility. Some 23
years ago, I was working on an earlier version of the Lower Churchill Project
when we looked at the idea of putting – get this – not Gull Island in place, but
extra turbines at the powerhouse.
That capability, that opportunity, is still sitting
there; a heck of a lot riskier than getting into perhaps another hydroelectric
project like Gull Island. It's essentially drilling in the rock in that
powerhouse granite; again, another opportunity for revenue. I'm not hearing a
lot of discussion about it but I did want to put it out there. I asked the
officials about it when we were in Churchill Falls just two weeks ago. They
confirmed that opportunity is certainly there. There are some other ways and so
on that could be meant and done to generate additional revenues, and I think we
should take a serious look at it. That's the kind of nimbleness that I feel we
need to talk about.
I wanted to go over to health care and this idea of
regional health authorities from the PERT from Dame Moya Greene. I thank those
who expedited an opportunity to sit and chat with her for about an hour and a
half a few weeks ago. I found that very helpful. I also found it very
insightful. I see the PERT report, frankly, as a smorgasbord of ideas, but I
would also suggest that given the time, given who they are and so on, it's clear
to say – and as my colleague from St. John's Centre has pointed out – there are
inaccuracies in that document.
We all have to be careful as we read it to say, okay,
that's an idea, but before we go any further, we better do some careful
analysis. Let's not let some idea get the traction that it may or may not
deserve until we're sure of exactly what is there. They didn't have years to put
this together. They were a bunch of folks, frankly, who were mostly outside of
government relying on people to provide them information in some cases that was
out of date, as was pointed out.
Back where I was going with health care services, which
I'm very concerned about and I think we all are. Face it, if you're running a
constituency office, that's occupying a lot of your time, trying to help people,
guide them through and trying to make sure that vacancies for specialist
positions are being filled, that people can have access to the care they need to
literally save their lives, to make sure that they're going to be okay. We have
a myriad of issues right now in Labrador that are just so frustrating and so
challenging.
I saw some reference in the budget to some new monies
for MTAP. I'm not sure if it's changes to the program; I'm not sure if it's
additional monies that will help those who need to travel for those services.
The officials in the room didn't think that was the case, but I guess we'll see
when more details come out. We have a number of serious vacancies, which are
causing great hardship. I thank the co-operation I am getting from
Labrador-Grenfell Health, from the senior team, in working through them.
I just want to list some of the key problems. No one
has a solution right now, but I just want to share with you some of the
challenges we have. We just had, unfortunately, our pediatric psychiatrist
leave. It was a position that was never based there, but we had a person who was
providing that service. I have many families who are in great hardship right
now. The authorities are working on it, but I'm just hoping that we can find a
solution and a resolution soon, because mental health, as we know, is a great
problem. Unfortunately, for children, we don't have a lot of people who are
specializing in that particular aspect and parents are very terrified of what
that might mean.
We don't have an ability for children to even go to a
dentist in Labrador; we have to fly them out. Ophthalmology service is another
one that's just so frustrating. I find to see the cost the government incurs for
somebody to have to fly out to St. John's or Corner Brook for, often, a
procedure that is in the vicinity of 10 to 15 minutes in duration, and the
thousands of dollars that we pay through MTAP – that the people themselves have
to pay, approximately, some of them, as often as every month and a half – it's
just, oh, my gosh.
Why can't we get a specialist to locations in Labrador?
We're having so many people travel. I've spoken about this before, but one
period of time I kept track and one-third of the MTAP files we were handling
were for people going out for this 10- to 15-minute procedure alone; thousands
and thousands of dollars. How much would it have cost to bring that specialist
in and just have them provide that service?
I have to underline nurses. I listened to a discussion
this morning about the number of schools that are involved in providing training
for nurses and so on. If we can find a more efficient way to do that, I welcome
it. Our nurses are overworked. We have so many that we need and I think we
should really think about how we can make better use of them. I'm seeing great
movement in that. I know the Health Minister very well. I've listened to his
plans and ideas and I'm just going to do whatever I can to encourage him. But I
just want to underline, in this time that I have, just how serious this is. It
is literally life and death and we need to figure this out.
I guess I'm just going to summarize: I still see these
four crises before us. There are lessons that we are learning from the pandemic.
I feel our province is not lucky. We've actually done a great job; luck had
nothing to do with it. We had a great team in place. We all came together. We
all rallied together. That was an all-party Committee like no other that
supported each other.
The demographic challenge – I heard it referenced a few
minutes ago – is a big one for us; our fiscal challenge is what we're certainly
talking about. Then I go to the big kahuna, climate change, and what this means
for all of us. Again, thinking seven generations out, I want to make sure that
people will look back at the 50th General Assembly and say thank God they
started really doing some good action there and showed some leadership.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J.
WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's indeed a privilege for me to speak today in this
hon. House as I represent the residents of the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis. This is the first time I've had the chance to speak here on
Budget 2021.
Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize this
week, being May 30 to June 6, as being Early Childhood Educators' Week for 2021.
We salute the early childhood educators and child care providers across our
province. I am doing that especially in my district. They certainly have an
important role in the development of our children. They certainly set forward
the foundation for lifelong learning and to enable them to grow and to become
happy, healthy and productive members of our communities. As 40 MHAs sitting in
this hon. House, that's who we want to work with, those types of people in our
communities.
I want to take a quote from the hon. Minister of
Finance; it's from her Budget 2021. It
says: “Healthy, sustainable communities are essential building blocks for
Newfoundland and Labrador.” It's from the hon. Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board. I'd just like to build on that, if I could. I know that all
the children throughout our province are those essential building blocks. I know
that we all agree with that and support our children. Of course, it just gives
more weight to the role that early childhood educators and child care providers
do play throughout our whole province.
This morning, I had the privilege of visiting one of
those daycares: Busy Bees daycare, a family home daycare in the Town of Torbay,
run by Ms. Erica Corcoran, who is the owner-operator, but also a board member of
the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had
the opportunity to meet outside under a safe, social-distanced visit with the
children in her care. They were excited to see Joedy show up to have a
conversation. One of the children lives next door to my parents and even asked –
he's at the age of two – how's Uncle Bob?
It's great to know that you have that connection with
the children in the area, especially with the child care providers. I'll be
continuing to visit other places in my district over the next couple of days.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis. I don't have as many towns in my district as my
colleagues from Bonavista or from Stephenville - Port au Port. I have five towns
in my district, with approximately 14,300 constituents. I can certainly tell
you, Mr. Speaker, that I have an awesome district, and I'm not afraid to say it.
We have five towns – Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Torbay, Bauline and Logy Bay-Middle
Cove-Outer Cove – in my district. They are growing communities, Mr. Speaker, in
need of upgraded infrastructure when we're coming to looking at municipalities.
That's why I was glad to see in
Budget 2021, under Stronger Communities and Municipalities – and, of
course, being a former mayor, having that municipal background certainly gives
you a different lens of looking at things. I do appreciate what was put in the
budget for municipalities – “$7 million dollars under the Municipal Capital
Works Program over three years to support projects that prioritize water,
wastewater, disaster mitigation, and regional collaboration.”
I realize the importance of that, Mr. Speaker. When I
became mayor in 2013, our first issue that we tackled head on was our clean
drinking water. I'm very proud to say that under two governments, we were very
successful in completing the water-filtration project in our town, which now
services approximately 72 per cent of the residents with clean, filtered
drinking water. It was started under this type of funding, and it's very
important to have that there to support. It doesn't the project; it supports the
project; it starts it off. You do your testing. You do what's needed to be
required in order to move the project forward. I appreciate that that is there
in the budget.
Of course, the other $70 million for community
infrastructure over three years under the Canada Infrastructure Program, the
multi-year funding of $70 million and the $147 million under the Canada
Community-Building Fund, which is, of course, the gas tax program: All of these
are essential for municipalities to survive.
I know that I have lots of colleagues here who have
municipal backgrounds and they would agree with me, the importance of this,
relating to municipalities. I'm glad to see that it's in the budget. I do
applaud the minister for that. Of course, being a former mayor, we'd love to see
more. Of course, everyone would love to see that; however, I do understand the
parameters we're working under, but I do appreciate that it is there in the
budget for municipalities to make them stronger, to make them more vibrant and,
of course, for the benefit of all the residents, so I do applaud that.
In my district, Mr. Speaker, I have five schools: Cape
St. Francis Elementary in Pouch Cove, Holy Trinity Elementary, Juniper Ridge
Intermediate, Holy Trinity High in Torbay and in Logy Bay -Middle Cove-Outer
Cove I have St. Francis of Assisi. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I've served on
school council in the past, over five years and I know that we have strong
school communities. I know we have strong school councils. We do have wonderful
volunteers that enable our children to have great school experiences.
I'll go back to the hon. minister's
Budget 2021. The line that I
appreciated seeing in the speech was: During this work – and the work would be,
of course, to reinvest in the classroom to take “the appropriate steps to
integrate the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District into the
Department of Education.” The line I liked to see was: “… we will closely
communicate with the school communities throughout the province.” That's
important, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, I served on school council for over five
years. I know the school council volunteers that are on the committees of my
five schools in my district. That's important, they want to be included in the
conversation.
Again, I thank the hon. minister for putting that
forward. It's sobering to see the bar graph there as well with respect to the
number of students and the level of investment. It's important for me. To be
honest, it's an evening conversation at my dinner table. My wife, Tina, is a
kindergarten teacher at Cape St. Francis Elementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
WALL:
Thank you.
I do know the challenges that come with teaching, but I
also know the rewards. They are to be supported and to be commended especially
during this pandemic with what they're going through. But I'm glad to see that
investment is there for schools and I look forward to the Minister of Education,
as well, rolling out that plan to see how this is going to operate. Of course,
we have the best targets in mind, which are the staff and, of course, the
children for their better education.
Mr. Speaker, Route 20 runs through my district, as we
all know. I would encourage anyone that's here to take a drive through my
beautiful district. All municipalities in my district, Mr. Speaker, do need
upgrades to the roadwork and to the infrastructure.
I would like to take this moment to thank the former
Member, Mr. Parsons, for the work that he's done over the last 12½ years. I do
want to acknowledge that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
WALL:
There is work that is going to be done this year that was, of course, by his
work is going to be completed this year. We do appreciate it and the residents
are looking forward to the work beginning. Some of it has begun so I would thank
the hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for the preliminary work
that has been started.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do have 138 kilometres of town
responsibility roads in my district as well. As I said, my district is well
travelled. There is a lot of vehicular transport coming through my
municipalities of the five towns and the roads are well used, no doubt about it.
We have to keep that in mind with respect to the responsibility that the towns
do have for the upgrade of that 138 kilometres of road.
I have spoken with all of the councils in my district.
I have met with all the councils, my constituent assistant and I, to open that
dialogue. I know each one of them, I know the staff in the towns, which are
great under my municipal background and that bodes well to have a good working
relationship at this level, and as I said when I first spoke in the House, to
work with all hon. Members to move forwards the needs of my district so I will
continue that, Mr. Speaker.
I was glad to hear the hon. minister speak about
tourism, when he spoke several times this week about tourism. My district, being
close to the City of St. John's and to amenities that are there, we don't have
the level of tourism that we do have in other districts, but I can tell you we
do have one gem of a draw in our district and that is the East Coast Trail.
Out of the total of 336 kilometres of East Coast Trail
in our province, 67 are in my district. I can tell you, again from my former
municipal career, I've had the opportunity of speaking with hundreds of people
across the province and around the world who walk the East Coast Trail in my
district. The response that I was given was there was no finer scenery in the
world.
It is certainly being missed right now with the
pandemic, every municipality throughout the province, every province in the
country is dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, as we all know. I would encourage
everyone who has the opportunity to take a moment to walk the East Coast Trail,
to come to my district to view the beautiful scenery we have and the shoreline.
Again, I should mention – I'd be remiss if I didn't –
the five towns in my district all have MOUs signed with the East Coast Trail
Association. Each town provides either monetary or in-kind service to the East
Coast Trail Association. When needed, if there's a flood or if there's snow
damage or what have you, the towns do work with the East Coast Trail committee
members to ensure that the East Coast Trail is safe and that it's open for
people to use. I just want to put that there. I'm very proud of the five
municipalities having those MOUs signed with the East Trail Association as well.
Mr. Speaker, we touched on seniors and aging. I have to
say, I attended Estimates last night with my colleague from Placentia West -
Bellevue. I'm not sure if the minister is here or not. Yes, he is. I said this
to him last night, so I'm not trying to swell his head today, but I have to say
it was very encouraging to sit in Estimates last evening as a new MHA, and the
reply I got from the hon. minister was: and as a new minister. It was
encouraging to be in Estimates last evening to hear what the minister had to say
with respect to his department and seniors. I think there's a budget line item
of just over a million dollars for Grants and Subsidies for seniors, which, of
course, we all know is well needed.
To have the level of commitment and the level of
engagement from the minister, I have to say, was very encouraging. I applauded
him last night for that and I have to say I applaud him again today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
WALL:
Mr.
Speaker, I will give credit where credit is due. I shall give credit where
credit is due. I'm not afraid to do that. I thank them again for that last
night.
Of course, every municipality, every district has
seniors. As the former Member had before, I have a soft spot for my seniors as
well. I'll do what I can when I can for them, the most vulnerable of our society
who make up a large demographic of each and every district here in this hon.
House. I do applaud the amount that's there for seniors and from the CSSD
Department. I do look forward to working with the minister on anything that
comes forward from my district with respect to seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't take a page
from my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans yesterday when he spoke on
rotational workers. I do know that each and every district has many rotational
workers in their areas, but I'll tell you, I've spoken with many hard-working
men and women throughout my district who work across this country, who work
around this world; I've spoken to them during the election and I've spoken to
them since. We have to support them. They're supporting our province with their
tax dollars, with their spending.
It's encouraging to see their resilience. We all know
the difficult time that those rotational workers went through. While at the
doors, I thanked them personally and I would like to do that here now, on
record, to thank the rotational workers and their families. It's a difficult
time, no doubt about it.
I've had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of never having to
leave this beautiful province. I've been here for my entire working career and
so has my wife. So I don't have that experience of working away and having to
come back and forth, but I do know that I've had family members in that
category. My brother, Raymond, works out in Fort McMurray; he's been doing so
for almost 20 years. I see how taxing it is on him, personally, and I see how
taxing it is on his wife and two children. You would think that as the years go
by it would get easier, but it isn't; it's getting harder each year.
We have to remember all of the rotational workers in
our districts, to applaud them, and for the families, the sacrifice that they
are making with respect to their mothers, their fathers, their brothers and
sisters who are working away. So we remember the rotational workers. When you
have the opportunity to have a chat with them at the Tim Hortons or Sobeys or
wherever you're to, have the opportunity to say thank you. Thank them for what
they're doing and, of course, for supporting our province as well.
Mr. Speaker, being a former municipal leader and
working closely with the volunteer groups in my Town of Pouch Cove, at the time
– and now, of course, I'm working with the volunteer groups in my district – I
want to touch on volunteer emergency responders and the important role they play
with respect to the operations of each municipality.
Province wide there are approximately 295 departments
and roughly 6,500 volunteers for emergency response. Now, I sat in Estimates
with the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety. I was a little disappointed
to know that there was $300,000 cut from the Grants and Subsidies for Fire
Protection, from $3 million to $2.7 million. I realize the importance of that
$300,000, because that could be the make or break for departments in several
districts, no doubt about it. I understand, again – as I said about the Finance
Minister earlier – the parameters we're under, I do, but I was disappointed to
see that there was a $300,000 cut.
Over the last year or so I've had the – and, please,
correct me if I'm wrong.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J.
WALL:
Yes, thank you.
I've had the opportunity, over the last year and a half
or so, to travel across the province, my wife and I. When we went to different
areas, we made a point of dropping in to the fire halls; we made a point of
looking at the infrastructure that's there. It is concerning, no doubt about it.
Aging infrastructure in our emergency response: That's something that we all
have to grapple with, no doubt.
I will say that I'm very proud of the emergency
response in my district. The Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department, of course,
have an annual budget of roughly $200,000 from the Town of Pouch Cove. The
Torbay Volunteer Fire Department, funded by the Town of Torbay, has an annual
budget of $561,000. It's encouraging to know that the municipalities do –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J.
WALL:
I
appreciate it. If I'm wrong – I hope I'm wrong, Minister.
I do appreciate the level of commitment that both
municipalities, Pouch Cove and Torbay, have for their fire departments. They see
the importance of updated equipment and infrastructure. They also notice the
importance and realize the importance of training that's involved, and mandatory
training, I might say, with respect to offensive and defensive firefighting. So
we have to be mindful of that.
We certainly applaud our emergency response volunteers.
They're on call 24-7 and I can speak to that personally. My son, Zach, is 22
years old. He's been a member of the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department for
the last six years; he started at a very young age. He has his five-year pin,
which I'm very proud of; he's working on his sixth year. I've been awake at 2 in
the morning when the pager goes off for a structure fire or a car accident or a
Code 4 medical call. I might add, as well, both departments are certified by
Eastern Health to answer Code 4 medical calls, which does speed up the time for
such a call in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is winding down. I could
say so much more. I do thank – and I'm looking forward to that response, Madam
Minister. But I do appreciate from my shadow Cabinet, with respect to what's
there for my district. I do look forward to working with, of course, both sides
of the House for the betterment of the constituents of Cape St. Francis.
It's certainly a pleasure for me; it's an honour. I
appreciate the vote of confidence that the residents have put in me. I look
forward to speaking again pretty soon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to have a second opportunity now to speak to
the budget. Before I get to the budget, there are a couple of issues I just want
to raise very quickly. First one, I just want to say to my colleague in Humber -
Bay of Islands, I could spend my 20 minutes as he did but I'll just simply say:
Ditto. I agree with everything he had to say about the election and our failure
in this House of Assembly to act upon the travesty that took place. He is right,
he is absolutely right, and for me one could be somewhat cynical and say: Well,
the Member's had issues with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I've
had no issues with him and I still have no issue with him. Nothing personal, no
issue here with me whatsoever, but right is right and wrong is wrong.
Everybody knows on both sides of this House, whether we
want to admit it or not, that there was big-time issues in this last provincial
election. Things were not done properly, the Commissioner even admitted so
himself, publicly, on one issue for sure. It should be investigated. I
understand there are court cases, but I believe this House of Assembly enjoys a
thing called privilege in this House of Assembly.
Anything we discuss in here would not pertain to – and
I'm not a lawyer, maybe my colleague over here may or may not agree but my
understand is that anything in this House of Assembly cannot be taken outside of
here to be applied to any court cases and so on because of the privilege that we
enjoy here. So there's nothing to stop us, concurrently, with any court actions,
to have the Commissioner for Legislative Standards come in this House of
Assembly and answer questions from his boss, which are all of us, he reports to
us.
He was appointed by this House of Assembly under the
Elections Act itself, it is even stated he can be removed from the House of
Assembly due to issues with the election if it could be shown there was any kind
of untoward activity or incompetence or whatever. It is stated right there in
the act, he can be removed.
Obviously, it was thought through by whoever created
this act to begin with that issues can arise and there was a remedy set there.
Now, I'm not prejudging and saying he should be removed, but what I am saying is
that he should come before this House of Assembly and answer questions. Once
we've gathered all the facts then we will collectively decide whether there
should be any action taken further than that or not.
I could talk about the election and all the issues but
I'm not going to do it because I want to talk about the budget, but, again, what
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands said: Ditto.
I had the opportunity – and this is something I did
speak to the Minister of Health and Community Services about, I raised it in one
of our weekly chats, I guess, on the COVID committee, or whatever you want to
call it. I participated, I guess, in a presentation, if you will, on Zoom this
morning with the Canadian Cancer Society. I don't know if other Members have
heard their presentation or not but anyway I did. They're advocating, obviously,
for a number of things. They're pleased with the tobacco tax and so on. They
want to see the government bring in legislation like we have in other provinces
on the flavours for the vaping, to get rid of flavours because apparently that's
the number one thing that's hooking teenagers on the vaping is the flavoured
juices that are associated with it. They want to see that banned. I agree with
that.
Of course, there are a lot of concerns they raised
about the fact that because of COVID -19, and the impact on our health care
system, they are predicting that there are going to be many more people than
normal that are going to be diagnosed with cancer because everything was
basically shut down for COVID, and either because of constraints within the
health care system or simply people not wanting to go and get things checked out
because they were afraid of COVID, that there are people probably who could have
been diagnosed over the last year who weren't diagnosed. They are also fearful
that a lot of people will now end up with more – once they do get diagnosed –
their cancer may be advanced because they never had it checked over the past
year.
They're concerned that there is going to be a capacity
issue within our health care system as it relates to cancer patients as a result
of COVID-19. This is going to be one of the things that is going to flow from
this in the coming months. I'm sure it's on the Minister of Health and Community
Service's radar. Despite our jabbering back and forth some times, I actually do
have a lot of confidence in the man. I will say that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
It's not just the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development that –
now we have at least two good ministers. Notice I say at least. I'm only
carrying on.
Another issue that I do just want to bring up before I
get right into the budget is the animal protection act. Over the last year or
so, I've been approached by a number of groups, animal protection groups and so
on, who have had serious concerns and issues with the inadequacies associated to
the animal protection act. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Fisheries,
Forestry and Agriculture –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P.
LANE:
Yes, he's not – anyway, we won't get into that. Well, he's pretty good because
he's from Bonavista North. I have to give him props for that at least.
I was glad to see that it was in the media recently
that he said that the department is undertaking a review of the animal
protection act. That's long overdue; I certainly support that.
One of the things I did ask him, because it wasn't
mentioned – and I did email him; I haven't gotten a response yet. I'm assuming
there's going to be a public consultation of some sort as we move through the
process of developing a new animal protection act. I would hope that's going to
happen. I would certainly encourage government to utilize engageNL and so on so
that animal rights groups and other interested people – animal lovers – can have
input into the new legislation. I'm hopeful that's going to happen. I just want
to put it out there, though, to people who may be watching that do have a strong
interest in animal protection that apparently there is a move afoot to work on
addressing that. I certainly welcome it.
Mr. Speaker, getting to the budget more specifically,
when I spoke to the budget yesterday, I kind of hit the tops of the trees on it.
I think I talked about a number of things that were in the budget that I thought
were positive things and things that I agreed with. I now want to just move on
to some other issues.
I don't want to frame it as I'm against it, because I'm
actually not, but I guess the things that I talked about the last time were sort
of positive changes. We know that some of the other changes that are going to
have to come, which, if done properly, I'm going to support, may not be
perceived as positive but more about being necessary changes. I am still with
you, I say to the minister. I am still with you as long as it's done properly
and as long as it's done fairly.
A lot of this budget debate and questions in Question
Period and so on – and I've been listening intently, as I always do – have been
more about the Budget Speech than the actual budget itself. I think we need to
clarify any confusion that may be created by this, because I've had some people
ask me about it. So when constituents ask me about it, I'm trying to tease out
the – there are two separate pieces here.
The budget itself, which is what's in this Estimates
book – not a big lot of changes. Not really. There are no major issues that I
see in this budget document, per se. Yes, there are a few taxes and stuff like
that. Nobody wants to see taxes. I don't want to see taxes and I'm sure nobody
else wants to see it, but, yeah, there are a few changes there.
When we're talking about Nalcor, when we're talking
about the school boards, when we're talking about consolidating the back-office
functions of the health care authorities, when we're talking about Marble
Mountain, even MUN – nothing has changed in this budget for MUN this year.
Actually, I think they got an increase. I could be wrong but I thought I heard
the minister say something about they were getting some extra money this year.
Don't hold me to that, but there has really been nothing changed that would
initiate a tuition increase this year, per se.
All of this is going to happen in the next budget and
the one after that and the one after that, assuming it's done over time and
methodically. A lot of the stuff that's being debated here is more about the
Budget Speech and the signalling of things to come, as opposed to the actual
budget, black and white on paper that we're going to be voting on. There is a
difference. I want to make that distinction, because when I support this budget
– and I will be supporting this budget. I don't mind saying that. I will.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
LANE:
When I support this budget, I don't want that to be interpreted as necessarily
supporting everything in the Budget Speech. There is a difference; there is a
big difference. I'll just use this as an example: When we talk about, in the
Budget Speech, consolidation of the backroom functions of the health care
authorities, I support it in principle. I support the concept of doing it, but
that doesn't mean that I'm going to support government, for example – and I'm
not saying this is going to happen.
I'm not suggesting it's going to happen but if
government were to say, okay, all the functions in Central, Labrador-Grenfell
and Western Health, you're all fired, see you later and we'll just take care of
it in St. John's. Now, I know that's not going to happen, but I'm just saying if
that was the approach that we're going to do it in that kind of a matter, slash
and burn – not consult, not take care of employees, not utilize attrition, not
find alternate positions for people – and we were going to do in a way that was
going to harm the system and make it more cumbersome, then I'm not going to
support that.
But I am going to say I'm going to support the concept
of doing it, as long as it's done properly. I support the analysis. I support
the analysis of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation – I support the analysis.
But until I see that analysis to understand how much money is coming into
government coffers right now, how much money is it costing us on the expense
side – because you could always look at the revenue side. I know at the end of
the day it's making money. We all know that. You can look at the revenue side
and say: Wow, that's amazing, but how much is it costing us on the expense side?
That has to be looked at.
Then you also have to look at, if we were to privatize
– dare I say that word, but if it were to happen. If it were to happen, exactly
what would be privatized? Is it the whole shebang? Is it just the retail? Is it
the supply chain, the warehousing? What is it, what parts of it or is it
everything in entirety?
If it were to be privatized, as an example, we need to
do evaluation of those assets. What are they worth? It's one-time money. That's
all it is, one-time money. We need to know how much those assets would be worth.
Are we getting a hundred thousand dollars? Are we getting a million dollars? Are
we getting a billion dollars? I don't know. I have no idea. What is it worth?
That has to be part of the consideration.
If it were to be privatized, how much money would come
into the government coffers then? Would it be the same? At the end of the day,
would we still have the same – I'm going to use the term – “net profit” for the
government? Is it the same value to the taxpayer or are we going to have to take
less? How much less? Maybe we're going to get more because we're also offloading
the expenses. Maybe we'll get more money. I don't know, but you need to know and
we don't know that now.
Then, of course, you have to factor in the concept of
persons working with the NLC are making a decent living and being able to
support their families as opposed to, if it were privatized, everyone is making
minimum wage and they can't support their families. Then, they're coming to
government through the back door for government programs and assistance to help
them. Not necessarily but it could and, again, it is part of the analysis.
I'm not interested in making a whole bunch of families
less well off in order to make a few millionaires multi-millionaires. I have no
interest in that. I would also like to know, if it were to happen, would it be
offered up to local Newfoundland and Labrador entrepreneurs that are going to
keep the money in Newfoundland? Or are we going to allow, like we've seen happen
with our cannabis, Canopy Growth, a Mainland outfit coming in paying minimum
wage and all the profits are going to the Mainland?
Are we going to allow Loblaws to come in and take over
the liquor stores? Is that what's going to happen because I'm not so sure I'm
supportive of that. Do we need another Walmart? Walmart comes in – yeah, a bunch
of minimum wage jobs and all the profits are gone out of Newfoundland. There are
all kinds of issues around it. While I support the concept of having a look,
that doesn't mean I support it until I see all the facts.
I can apply that same logic to other things. I have a
lot of reason – and I do – to be upset with certain people in Nalcor, but it is
only certain people and I don't want that to be confused either. There are a
handful of individuals, I'm going to say – I'm going to be nice; he's waiting
for me to say hoodwinked. He's waiting for me to say it because I have said it
so many times. They hoodwinked the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We saw the Muskrat Falls inquiry. Those individuals
have not been held accountable, which is very, very disappointing. It's
infuriating, actually – it is absolutely infuriating. I have said in this House
of Assembly before, the $6-million man would still be in courts trying to get
his money. I'd be prepared to spend more to keep him fighting on many levels and
others besides, who are still there.
But the concept of Nalcor – now, I agree. If you look
at Nalcor, the Muskrat Falls Project is pretty much completed. So do we need
Nalcor, NL Hydro and OilCo? Then, plus, we have the department. Is all that
needed? I think most of us would agree it's not needed. That has nothing to do
with any vendetta against Nalcor. You can call it Nalcor. Let's call it Nalcor.
Although, I think we would be better off, to be honest with you – the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador – I think that name has to go, psychologically, if
nothing else. I think that name has to change, whatever it is.
Whatever you call it, it makes sense. There's too much
duplication. I support that in concept. I absolutely do support it. In the same
way as I talked about the health care authorities and so on, I'm not going to
support yanking the rug from under the feet of hard-working people who go to
work every day and have established themselves and are feeding their families.
I'm not going to support just yanking the rug out from under their feet. Again,
it has to be done properly. We have to utilize attrition, early retirements,
finding other opportunities in other government agencies to look after anybody
and so on.
We have to respect collective agreements throughout
this whole process. That's the other thing. I'm not a socialist, by any means,
but one thing I did have a big problem with, with Dame Moya Greene, was the
commentary – which was just like waving a red flag at a bull, as far as I'm
concerned – about collective agreements and legislating away rights. I, for one,
am not going to support that either. It has to be done properly and we have to
follow the proper processes.
I guess my message is, in terms of this actual budget,
I will repeat: I support this budget. I support a lot of the good things that
are here. I will support a lot of the challenging things that need to be done in
the future, as long as they're done properly and fairly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to start again on a theme that I spoke about
in the first time I spoke on the budget, but in relation to this amendment as
well.
Yesterday, I asked questions regarding the pension
plan. Really, what I was after was an acknowledgement that Moya Greene, in the
PERT report, got it wrong. The inaccuracies, if they would be used to make
decisions and have an influence on the budget, have the real possibility of
doing some serious harm and making bad decisions.
One of the recommendations that she did make was to
move the current public sector pension plans into a defined collective
contribution plan. Well, that's impossible to do.
She made a number of statements about the liability –
about it being $1 billion more and it's already started to have effects on
people and undermining confidence in the pension plans.
To be clear, government's only outstanding liability is
the government's promissory note, at this point $1.7 billion for the teachers'
plan held by the teachers' plan corporation. So we understand this, it was to
pay for pre-reform obligations to teachers who were already retired at the time
of the reform who could not make any contributions to it. Even if it's turned
into a defined collective contribution plan or made any changes, that liability
is still there. Government would have to pay it instead of the Teachers' Pension
Plan Corporation.
The promissory note is similar to any Newfoundland and
Labrador bond held by banks or entities to which the province owes money.
Government doesn't have the ability through legislation or otherwise to
arbitrarily change the teachers' pension plan for already retired teachers. It
cannot be done, they're on the hook.
Now, Dame Moya Greene should have known better than to
have made such a simplistic conclusion and recommendation. She missed the mark.
I didn't hear that yesterday, I'm saying it now, she missed the mark. She got
her facts wrong.
I did ask where she got that in a teleconference, in a
technical briefing; it was from the Department of Finance. Now, I realize a lot
of people from the Department of Finance at the time had moved over to the
Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation, but what she should have done and what she
didn't do at that time was to speak to the two pension corporations that are now
managing successfully the pensions.
In an audited financial statement of December 2020, the
Teachers' Pension Plan – I'll speak to that – is actually almost 115 per cent
funded. It has a surplus of assets. To say that we have an unfunded liability of
$1 billion more than six years ago was misleading.
When it's done, and I have to make this clear that
teachers at the time agreed to reduce benefits by almost $400 million and
they're paying – this is all on younger teachers now – higher premiums; higher
than what the requirements are, the administrative costs are. They are paying
some 11.35 of their salary, matched.
What the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation did and
what the public sector pension plan did is they removed liability from
government's books and they both made the plans financially stable. Actually, in
the Teachers' Pension Plan: $6 billion in assets and it has eliminated the
unfunded liability going forward. So the plan is actually heading towards one of
the triggers where you could see the reduction of premiums for both teachers and
government – a savings.
I can tell you that at the time I was the president I
worked hard to fix this plan. We had access to government actuaries at the time
that they hired; we paid for it. We hired Robert Blais, the top pensions' expert
in the country to make sure that this plan worked. As he said at that time: Our
plan wasn't mature, it was old, but we got it on stable footing.
But here's what has happened, recently people have –
actually, I got a call from a few teachers wondering if they should commute
their retired benefits, if they should get out of the plan right off the bat.
Now, if you have enough teachers doing that or enough people you will undermine
the stability of the plan. That is what Moya Greene's comments have done, and
that record needs to be straight.
Secondly, I want to look at – I just looked at the
budget around some of the recommendations in the Moya Greene report and what is
in the budget.
2013 saw the amalgamation of four school districts into
one. I spent most of my teaching career on the Southern Shore and I remember the
school board; it was one of the best places of my teaching career, I can tell
you that – half of my career there. But when you walked into the school district
office in Mobile – it was a bungalow – all of, I guess, the consultants were
there; we were first among equals. That's about it; that's what they were. They
visited the school and it was very much a human enterprise.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J.
DINN:
You
got it. Frank went around to every classroom throughout the whole district
talking to each classroom. But, you know, you don't get that now.
As they became more amalgamated, they became more
corporate headquarters. I don't think, overall, it was an improvement. But I'll
tell you this, I don't know if any analysis was ever done if, indeed, that
amalgamation saved money or if it actually streamlined it, made it more
efficient, education better or if the number of staff hired actually increased.
But let's take a look at this. In her report, Moya
Greene talks about eliminating school boards, both the francophone school board
and the English School District. No talk of analysis first. In the budget,
basically, we're going to take the appropriate steps to integrate into the
department. I heard the minister say today that he will complete an analysis
after the transition has been completed.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
No
(inaudible).
J.
DINN:
That's what I have. I stand to be corrected, but I wrote it down: Analysis will
be completed once the transition has been completed. I think that needs to start
right now before we make that decision.
However, for the Francophone school board it's not
about integrating, it's about developing a more defined accountability
framework. That's what the budget says. Why the difference? Is it because also
that maybe Moya Greene got it wrong that you can't eliminate the Francophone
school board, there are some charter implications? Got it wrong.
With regional health authorities, the recommendation
from Moya Greene was to “Review the current structure and consolidate the four
Regional Health Authorities into one ….” The budget states that the government
is “announcing an integrated corporate services model that will streamline …
payroll, finance, accounting, human resources, information management and
technology procurement.” Why the difference?
By the way, the only time that Moya Greene mentions the
use of a review or analysis is in the RHAs, to review the current structures.
Why no amalgamation? Why are we looking at it streamlined? Why wasn't that a
possibility not offered, if it's about eliminating duplication? Is that what's
going to happen with the NLESD and the department or not?
Nalcor: Moya Greene says to “eliminate Nalcor Energy
and merge its components into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in a phased
approach, including the merging of power management, electricity sales,
generation, and transmission ….” The budget, however, says to “immediately begin
a comprehensive analysis and reorganization of Nalcor to streamline, remove
duplication ….” That's the only place in the budget that it talks about a
comprehensive analysis.
It doesn't say do a comprehensive analysis with the
RHAs, it doesn't talk about doing a comprehensive analysis with integrating the
NLESD, but when it comes to Nalcor – and I'm not sure if it's because of
political connections or otherwise – we'll do the analysis here. I notice that
there are some differences here in the approach to Moya Greene, divergences from
what she recommends and even within.
Now, I'm not sure if integrating the English School
District into the department is going to be better or not, but I would like to
see some evidence before we start, an analysis that's presented here and then
let's talk. Because I can tell you that as a teacher in the field, my
professional life did not get any better as a result of amalgamating four school
districts into one. For schools in Labrador, actually, it became a nightmare.
So I've been looking at this. Why the different
approach? Was there something wrong? Are there other factors at play? That's
basically been a lot of the questions that I've heard from my colleagues in the
Official Opposition as to the rationale. That's what we're looking for.
Moya Greene goes on to talk about that K-to-6 teachers
do not teach math – do not know how to teach math, anecdotally, and we're going
to make a recommendation on that. I can tell you I'm married to a primary
teacher and my daughter is a primary teacher. They know how to teach math better
than I do as a high school teacher.
I would say that half the time it's the curriculum
changes that come in and the new initiatives brought on by government that
here's what we should do – that before anyone has a chance to get used to a
program, the programs change. I can tell you one thing that every generation
says: Well, that's not how I learned how to do math. I had a slide rule and a
table. Not even a timetable in high school; I forget what it was. That's what we
used. Calculators take care of that right now.
Eight-hour day for teachers: recommends extending
teachers to eight hours a day. Now I'm thinking as a teacher: Perfect, I'm
walking out with my arms swinging because just about every study that's been
done shows that teachers work on average 50 hours-plus a week, and primary
probably more.
Schools: I did my teaching internship in Netteswell
Comprehensive School over in Harlow, England. I was impressed with that; it's a
massive school. It even had a farm on it, a farm for the students – it had
everything. It was a comprehensive school; it was everything to everyone.
I visited a neighbourhood school in Vancouver. What I
was most impressed with is that they had a garage. I think it was a three- or
four-port garage there for students. They had theatre; they had pottery rooms,
the whole bit, in addition to. I'm thinking, if you want to improve education,
if you want to start giving students experience, that's what you're building.
You start looking at these things.
Here's the problem: Newfoundland and Labrador schools
with equipment. I don't know how many schools I visited as president where we
had brand new equipment – chop saws, everything else – still in the box. Why? No
teacher to teach it. I was in one school where one teacher took it on, the
French teacher. She built walls the way that I would have built walls: crooked,
but she took it on. The biggest challenge at that time is that if we're going to
resource it, we have to make sure we resource it.
SMART Boards: $5,000 a shot. That was a few years ago.
They have to be replaced. You think about if you have a school with 20
classrooms; there's a challenge. Or if you have Chromebooks, but you don't have
the Internet capacity to support it.
Earlier, I tossed about the questions on the
sugar-sweetened drinks. It's interesting; I had a call from a rather irate
school councillor who was so frustrated. She talked about the investment in 811
mental health phone line. I'm going to read a few lines from what she said here:
The investment in the 811 mental health phone line is not really an investment
in mental health. Individuals struggling with significant mental health issues
due to trauma or mental illness depend on a safe relationship and are often not
comfortable using the phone to speak, let alone to contact a stranger about
their most challenging symptoms. Trauma informs; therapists provide safe space
and guided techniques to calm their brain and nervous system before engaging in
dialogue.
To imply that health, food choice and exercise are
purely a matter of individual knowledge, choice and intellect disregards the
powerful research that has highlighted the links between trauma, mental health,
digestion and chronic illness and it disregards powerful opportunities for us to
actually take meaningful steps. She pointed out to me that those who are going
through trauma don't often have the ability to digest nutritious food. They're
in fight-or-flight mode, grabbing sugar, grabbing energy.
There was a recent article in the
Journal of Women's Health: “The Association of Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder with Fast Food and Soda Consumption and Unhealthy Weight Loss Behaviors
Among Young Women” concludes that “PTSD symptoms adversely affect both eating
and dieting behaviors of young women. These behaviors may have negative
long-term consequences for the health of females with PTSD symptoms.”
My colleague from Topsail - Paradise stole my question;
I think someone informed him of it. It was the very question I was going to ask.
Here's the thing: I wanted to know where that money was going, and that is the
key thing. It is not good enough merely to put a tax on a soft drink unless
we're going to find a way to make healthy food choices more available and also
deal with some of the underlying causes.
As I've told you when I was at the Ches Penney Centre
of Hope kitchen, it is amazing how many people there – when you come in, they'd
get a drink, I would be serving them a drink, they'd ask for five, six or seven
packs of sugar for their coffee. I was amazed by it. It makes sense, especially
if their trauma – yeah, that's their high.
I guess, in the end, a budget is about choices and
about people.
I will read you an example, this is a gentleman who
lives in my district. Laboured as a labourer all his life, owns a very small
home in my district; living on Old Age Security. I think he gets around $16,000
or so a year. He has $1,333 a month to pay for his expenses. He's 75 years old,
lives in his own home, which he has paid off after many years of working. His
monthly expenses include: home insurance, city property taxes, Newfoundland
Power, oil, medical, dental, gas, car maintenance and so on and so forth.
His one pleasure – I was talking to him – is to go out
on the Witless Bay Line to do a little bit of trouting. He's looking at aging in
place as part of The Way Forward plan.
He feels he will have to go into a home sooner – and this is the thing that he
is looking at right now, he feels he is going to have find a way to get into a
home sooner than he'd like to and give up the comfort of his own home he careful
paid for and maintained his entire life. The cost of living in a home will burn
through the equity in his small home very quickly so who will foot the bill
then? It's going to come back on us.
So for this gentleman, he's facing a real struggle. I
look at the number of seniors in my district and I'm sure, as in any other
district who are living independently: that's what I want when I get to be that
age. But it has got to be at some point here where we have to look at how do we
help our seniors and how do we help keep people independent and out of a
long-term care facility, which as my cousin would say: a long-term death, in
some cases.
In conclusion here with this, what we're looking for in
this budget is the rationale for the decisions. If it's being based on Moya
Greene, there are things in there that cause me to believe that she doesn't have
it right. Are the differences that we see in how the budget approaches it, is it
a recognition that she didn't get it right? More importantly, what's the
rationale for the different actions that have taken place in terms of regional
health authorities, Nalcor, and the districts? Why is it that one is automatic
integration? Why are we just going to integrate corporate services? Why aren't
we going to do an analysis first?
That's been the part that's been confusing people;
certainly confusing and what we're seeking answers to.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll carry on with what my hon. colleague from St.
John's Centre said about education. I have a lot of people in the trades and
stuff in my district. A lot of young people go off to trade school and come back
for the opportunities in the mining industry that's up there. One thing we
always found was that when it comes to block training, to do your bocks to get
your Red Seal, they were always forced to go away from Lab West to do their
block training. They wouldn't have an instructor or anyone come up or anything
like that to do the training.
They always found that a big group of them would leave
Lab West, an entire group of them would be all together, in another community
somewhere else. They spent a lot of their own personal money to get out there
and they'd all be sitting in the same classroom together somewhere; it could be
Stephenville, it could be out around Pouch Cove, somewhere like that.
We always asked the question: Why are we doing this?
Why wouldn't the training be brought to those tradesmen? It's one of those
things about making choices, making efficiencies and making stuff like that, but
also the choices we make when we're even scheduling programming or anything like
that. It's always been the frustration of a lot of tradespeople up my way: Why
are we taking an area that has a large amount of tradespeople and bringing the
services to them so they can get their training done and everything like that
instead of sending them all out to a different location, together as a large
group, to do this training and then find out later we have to reimburse them for
a lot their costs and stuff like that later?
You look at your costs, it's the same thing. Why are we
spending more for something we can spend less on and find a more efficient
service like that? This is not a new topic. This has been brought up time and
time again: Why are we doing things like this? We look at all the advancements
of technology and stuff like that.
I know we did a pilot project up there one time when it
came to heavy equipment technicians where we actually had the class in Lab West
using distance learning and they were a part of another class that was out in
Stephenville and they were able to do their block training that way. At the
time, all of the tradespeople were very pleased with the way that their block
training was carried out. Then to find out that was a one-time thing; they
didn't carry on with it. It became very frustrating because, then, all of these
Labrador tradespeople ended up having to pay a large portion of money and leave
their families to go out to a school, as a group to another school where they
were the majority in the classroom.
Another thing funny about it (inaudible), there's never
been a case where people from the Island were forced to come to Labrador to do
their block training. It's a very one-sided street in that sense. It's something
that we really need to go through. It was actually a recommendation in the
recent post-secondary report stating a review of block training and
apprenticeship training. Maybe this is a good start now, to review the
apprenticeship programs, the Red Seal programs and stuff, and make it more
efficient for the students and the tradespeople. Because, you know, as a
philosopher always said: The foundation of a state is built on the education of
its youth.
This is a good opportunity that we can build a
foundation on the education of our youth in this province and we can start by
making it as least inconvenient as possible to get an education or to continue
your education in this province. Because putting barriers up in front of people
is only going to hurt society; it's not going to advance us further. Putting
barriers in place like cost, transportation, lack of opportunity, if we can
knock down all of those barriers we'd have a very sturdy foundation.
A lot of the barriers that I found at home in Labrador
– we do have a lot of barriers to education up in Labrador and we should be
starting to knock down those walls and building a stronger foundation for those
youth. There are a lot of opportunities, a lot of bright minds up there and
living in a place like Labrador you get a little creative and have a bit of
ingenuity. So if we give these people the tools that they want and they need,
I'm sure we'll reap the benefits in a very short period of time.
It's a great place, Labrador, to actually try out new
methods of education and different ways of delivering education because we're
such an isolated place, not very many communities that are spread out over a
vast space of land. I'm sure we can get very creative and deliver some education
and some opportunities to the youth up there moving forward. Even with the
system we have now, we have been very creative. I think we can grow that beyond
anything. Let's think outside the box. Let's great creative and deliver some
interesting post-secondary.
I know, last year, the Labrador Institute's Memorial
University office in Labrador West closed. That was a large blow to Labrador
West. We do have a lot of young people; we do have a very healthy high school
population. Unfortunately, losing that office was a big blow to Labrador West
residents. It kind of seemed counterproductive to what we want to see in
Labrador. We want more Labradorians to go to Memorial University. They do have a
great facility and everything going on in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but from the
point of view of Lab West, people interested in engineering, trades and things
like that, having that office closed, it did hurt.
It was counterproductive to what we should be doing in
Labrador: encouraging young people to attend a Newfoundland and Labrador
university and have that opportunity. I feel that without replacing that office
or expanding the role of Memorial University in Labrador, especially in Labrador
West, may send our students to universities in the Maritimes or Quebec. It was
disappointing, indeed, to see that we did lose that office. Hopefully, it
doesn't have a negative impact on young people in my constituency to go into
Memorial University.
We should be expanding opportunities up there. There's
a great opportunity in the mining industry. I know we always beat around and
talk about the idea of a mining centre of excellence in Labrador. Maybe we
should take an opportunity to relook at that initiative and maybe expand on
research and development in the mining industry in Labrador West, because there
are lots and lots of opportunities there.
Today, I had the great opportunity to talk with a
junior miner who is looking at starting operations in the next year or so in
Labrador West. There's some great opportunity there. Starting and building a new
mine is not an easy feat, but at the same time, it's a great opportunity for
research and development and to get young people interested in the world of
engineering, mining engineering and the trades. We need to explore every
opportunity to advance and move young people into relevant trades and stuff in
this province, and keep people home.
When people hear good stuff about advancements in
technology and opportunity in a region, usually that's where people seem to turn
and migrate towards. Even the miner I was talking to talked about how this
province has a lot of opportunity in the mining industry. Maybe we make hay
while the sun shines and take this opportunity to, maybe, invest in technology,
research and development and mining substantially. It's a growing industry. I
know there is some money in this budget for that, but there's always room for
more, to advance that and push it forward more.
We talk about miners; now I want to talk about the
miners of retirement. We do have a lot of seniors staying in my district. I know
I presented a petition earlier about it and the hon. Minister of CSSD did
respond to it. I thank him for that because we need to take this really
seriously. We do have seniors in our region that don't have adequate care or
housing in the future and they are finding it hard and difficult. Home care,
level-3 care: Like I said, I always say we do have long-term care, but it
doesn't meet the needs of everybody there.
We do need to look at affordable senior living and
assisted living as much as we can to keep these people home. They came to
Labrador West in the '50s, '60s and '70s; they built a community that's very
strong and vibrant. We've survived many ups and downs in the industry and we're
still chugging along. These people deserve and should have the right to stay in
their community and watch their grandchildren grow and enjoy the community that
they built.
We need to take the time to help seniors age in place
in affordable units, in affordable housing, but also make sure that there's care
available to them, especially home care and so on. Like I said, again, any home
care workers who are interested in moving to Labrador West, I encourage it. We
do need home care workers. We would greatly appreciate your service to our
community.
It's really important that we take care of our seniors
and take care of the opportunities that they've brought to us in Labrador West.
I thank them for building the community that I was fortunate to grow up in. I'm
very passionate about Labrador West; it's a great place, great opportunity. It's
a great place to raise families. There will always be opportunity in Labrador
West. Like I said before, there are lots and lots of ore in the ground, lots of
iron in the ground. I'll be there for a long time and I hope to see my children
there for a long time and take up the opportunities that I also had. Moving
forward, we really need to take a serious look at helping seniors out to the
best of our ability and to provide an opportunity for them to age in place and
stay in their communities. We have to be able to do this.
We have great tourism opportunities, too. Labrador
West: Everyone says it's a mining industry. It does take up a lot of oxygen in
the room, but there is opportunity to carve out other industries in Labrador
West, too. I always go back to tourism. I have a soft spot for tourism. It's a
great industry; it's a great opportunity to be a show-off; show off what you
have, show off the great community that we live in and for people to see
everything we've built.
Another thing is we have opportunity there in – we
don't really have to build much tourism traction because the natural beauty of
Labrador is what a lot of people are seeking. Once again, we have to take an
opportunity in adventure tourism and turn our gaze towards Labrador a bit and
build upon what we have there.
I know my hon. colleague from Lake Melville mentioned a
project that even I was involved with a little bit before I came to the House of
Assembly with the branding of Route 389 in Quebec, Route 500 through Labrador
and Route 510, showcasing the interesting, unique history of that area. We have
an opportunity there.
Right now, the Quebec government has started to
re-route Route 389 so it actually shortens the highway by almost 40 kilometres.
It's even faster to get to Labrador now from Montreal and they're paving it.
This is the opening of the door for Labrador in the sense that people can easily
drive from some of the largest centres in this country into Labrador even faster
on a paved highway.
The door is open now and it's time for us to grab this
opportunity of investing tourism into Labrador. Because once that project is
complete on Route 389, there's nothing stopping people, really, from coming up
in a – I expect that within the next couple of years when that's done,
motorhomes and adventure tourism will start to trickle in to Labrador West.
Therefore, once we come through the gateway there, it's just on to Lake
Melville, Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and the Torngat Mountains.
The opportunity is here, it is coming. We should be
ready for it and to put some investment into that region so we can have an
opportunity to showcase Labrador and keep people in Labrador, instead of just
being an opportunity to drive through. We want to keep people there; we want to
slow them down and instead of spending one day, spending five days. That's the
thing now. Unfortunately, with the mining industry in Lab West, sometimes it
sucks all the oxygen out of the room. We need to make sure that we place some
key investments in Labrador West to start the seed so that we have the tourism
industry blossom there.
I know the Member for Lake Melville, my colleague
there; he did mention our trip to Churchill Falls and the opportunity there to
talk about Churchill Falls. That is an interesting piece of infrastructure. From
a tourism point of view, from an engineering point of view, even from any other
point of view, that piece of infrastructure is phenomenal. It's unbelievable
when you sit down and talk to people there at Churchill Falls and they tell you:
We can make it bigger. You're like: Oh, really, you can make this bigger.
They just look at you: Yeah, we can make this plant
more efficient, larger and we can put out more capacity. You stop and think: You
know, this is a massive project; this is not just a little tiny dam. This thing
is unreal; how big it is. They look at you and tell you: We can make it bigger,
we can make it more efficient and we can put out more electricity just from this
plant alone. You have to stop and think: That's phenomenal that this piece of
infrastructure that's in our province has not even reached its full potential.
It's fascinating to see.
Like I said, the mining industry sucks a lot of oxygen
out of the room. In my district, one of the things they want is power; the
ability that we can actually continue to develop just one piece of
infrastructure. We have for the ability to provide electricity to the mining
industry in Labrador, and any other industry, in retrospect, and that we can
actually continue to grow Labrador in a way with a piece of infrastructure we
already have. It's interesting to see that we have the ability to take this,
without having to build a whole other facility but to modify a facility we have.
That's something we should seriously take a look at: adding the capacity of what
we already have to benefit other industries and grow industries that we already
have as well. We have the tools, we have the ability and now we just need to
turn and see how we put the two together to actually help grow and evolve what
we have.
It was interesting to see that we have emerging mining
industries, too; not just iron ore. There's still more nickel, copper, gold and
rare-earth minerals. There's still all of that to be found in Labrador and we
need to take the opportunity to nurture that industry in the sense that we want
to be the global leaders in mining and we want to be the global leaders in the
green industries. We want to be the ones supplying the minerals for the
batteries and all of the other infrastructures that we want to build to help
reduce our carbon footprint in this world. We should be the ones leading.
Everyone should be talking about all of the minerals that come out of Labrador
and off the Island of Newfoundland.
We have people interested, so let's make sure we
nurture the industry, but also make sure that we give them the guidelines and a
clear understanding that we can do this. We want to do this in a fair way; a way
that protects the environment at the same time. Be the ones that the European
Union looks at us and says: That's how you do it. That's how you can be a global
leader and environmentally responsible.
They're the ones who are setting some very stringent
criteria for trade. Well, do you know what? Maybe we can be the ones to lead the
country. We can follow the rules; we can be a global leader in green mining.
That's how we should approach this.
There is now a concerted effort to only purchase
materials and minerals and stuff that are from a point of view that it was
sustainable, environmentally conscious and trade-friendly. Maybe we can take up
the flag and be the world leader in how to be that industry, be that
environmentally conscious and be what the world is looking for now.
We have the opportunity. I want to leave this place
better than I found it. I want to hand if off to my children and say: I did
everything in my power to protect the environment and protect what we have. I
don't want my daughter in here one day cleaning up my mess. I want to leave it
here that she just continues on with our legacy.
That's how I feel; we have to leave this planet better
than we found it. Hand it off to our future generations in a way that they will
say: Do you know what? Dad did a good job. I'll continue what he did. That's how
I want to look at it.
We have a lot of opportunities ahead of us. We have a
lot of challenges ahead of us, but, I think, if we look at the world around us,
we have everything that we need to shuffle the cards in a way now that we can
play a good hand and we can find our way out of this.
We also have to protect the environment and we also
have to protect future generations from any other negative effects because,
unfortunately, we were handed a world a bit carbon heavy and a bit hard to
navigate now. It left us in a climate challenge that we have to navigate, but we
can do it. We can make the right decisions now that everything going forward,
we're not doing any more damage than what was already done.
It can be done in a way that's affordable. It can be
done in a way that's environmentally conscious. It can be done in a way that
protects jobs but also – I honestly believe the green industry and (inaudible),
we're going to add a lot more jobs to the economy because it takes a lot of
people power to actually do these big changes. It's not going to be two or three
people, it's going to be hundreds of thousands of people having to make a
concerted effort and work towards this.
With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just speaking on the budget, a couple of things I
wanted to go over. I'm just going to go over by the headings there. In this book
it talks about transforming government. In that section it talks about the
delivery of marine services to coastal and remote communities. It says it's
important, but then it goes on to a however and talks about cost. Then there's a
therefore, and then it says: “… we will invite joint solutions for a more
effective way to maintain and improve the delivery of ferry service, taking into
consideration the perspectives of the people who use it.”
It's only in Labrador that the ferry service is
privatized and people are getting nervous about joint solutions, effective ways,
because you hear unions talk about it in the media about privatization.
Privatization is feared.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L.
EVANS:
The
thing, Mr. Speaker, is regardless of –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
L.
EVANS:
You're either going to have to stop the time or stop them. I don't mind as long
as the mic can pick up what I'm saying. I don't care really what they say,
because, in actual fact, I think they're a part of the problem, Mr. Speaker.
But getting back to just this banter about
privatization. Oh goodness, that's not what we're saying. But do you want to
know something? Why is it only in Labrador that the ferries were privatized?
Think about that now. There's fear mongering – that's the words I just heard,
fear mongering. But, at the end of the day, that's already been done. I talk
about the gap that's a great divide.
Now, also, taking into consideration the perspectives
of the people: Do you know that for my district when they were changing the
ferry system to stop the freight from coming from the Island, which kept the
cost of food and building materials down, that I continue to talk about over and
over again, there was no consultation? Actually, there was a legal
responsibility to consult with the people. Actually, the first minister in 2018
was in the public stating – the first minister of Nunatsiavut Government stating
– that in actual fact the province was in violation of the Land Claims Agreement
because they had a duty to consult and they didn't.
They brought in this service that just came out of
Goose Bay to the North Coast and basically burdened us with all the trucking.
There was no consultation. Regardless of whether they're going to privatize the
Island service or not – and people are upset about it. I'll tell you why people
are upset about it. It's because they are concerned that with privatization will
come less services, higher costs and loss of jobs. That's when privatization is
done wrong and we have a history of doing things wrong.
I am not against privatization when it enhances
services, when in actual fact, it cuts costs, but the whole point is that there
is a lot of fear out there. I'll tell you something now; they've already done it
to us. This is how it goes. Anyone who basically had to travel to the coast
during the summer, and was going to go by marine ferry, would understand; anyone
in the middle of the winter when they're trying to feed their family and they're
trying to go down and buy groceries. It is ridiculous in actual fact.
Transforming government – right.
Health outcomes: Now, being positive, I really like the
Physical Activity Tax Credit. It's a refundable tax credit up to $2,000 per
family. I think you're going to have to clarify, because in my family, one of my
sisters has two children and the other sister has five – five kids all playing
sports, all doing everything. The thing about it is when it comes to tax credits
if you're going to actually encourage families to be healthy you also have to
make sure it's fair. So think about that; also, if you're a family of one. There
are different issues at play so we go back to clarifying things. I think what we
should do is try to make it available to everybody, make it a positive tax
credit.
How is this tax credit actually going to be given out?
Is it when you get your gym membership or you pay your hockey fees? In a lot of
my communities they don't even have a rink. In the community of Rigolet, they've
been years now trying to get some covering for their outdoor hockey rink because
they can only play on it a few days when it's not snowing or it's not too cold.
They have been applying, trying to get some moneys to put some dome over their
hockey rink.
Hopedale doesn't even have an outdoor hockey rink. It
goes back to what the Member for – I forget. He was talking about gymnasiums.
Well, with the COVID shutdown of all the school activities and the closure of
the school gyms, I have three communities in my district that don't have a gym
that's not attached to the school. Since COVID hit, actually, no one in the
community has been able to play any gym sports. It has impacted not only our
children, but our adults; not only on a physical level, but also on the
emotional level. It's actually creating a lot of issues and it's all compounded
by the gap in services and infrastructure that's available.
Just going on. Another thing in this book, it talks
about: “Chronic diseases impact the health of the population, as well as the
sustainability of the health care system.” I agree with that. There are no truer
words spoken. Chronic diseases impact the health of our population. We know
that. In my district, we're still actually dealing with outbreaks of TB. It's
2021. Actually, just a couple of years ago – two or three; I have no concept of
time – we had a young boy die from TB, in this day and age. I knew his father
and I knew his mother.
That young boy actually, to me, was a huge – I don't
know how to put into words what that young boy meant to his family. He was
smart, he was polite and he was energetic. You could look at him and you could
see he was going to go through the school system, that he was going to go on; he
was going to get a good job; he was going to be a good support to his mom and
his dad in their old age. He died of TB; he's gone.
Also, a very, very talented singer, one of our greatest
assets to the Inuktitut language because he was known for his ability to sing in
choirs. Actually, he was sought all over the world. The talent, everybody still
talks about him. Just recently, he died of TB. These things happen. It's 2021,
but you know something? It's like we're still back in the '50s and '60s when it
comes to health care – chronic diseases.
At the root of that, one of the biggest problems we
have with TB is shortage of housing. We still have overcrowding in houses
because it goes back to houses are too expensive: $400,000 to $500,000. I
already explained to people in this House a building lot costs $250,000. It's
not the cost of the land. It's not the land; it's to actually develop the land
to put in the water and sewer lines there and then you have to build a house:
$250,000.
I'd like to compare pictures of a $400,000 house in
Nain compared to a $400,000 house in St. John's. I think it'd be pretty
surprising what we'd see. Four hundred thousand dollars now is the bottom line,
a small house. I laugh inappropriately because it's too bad; it's too tragic,
it's too sad. The response that we grew up with was to kind of laugh. I think it
was basically a strategy with our parents to keep us from giving up hope.
Anyway, chronic diseases do impact the population and
it does actually affect the sustainability of the health care system. If you
look at the burden to the province for Labrador-Grenfell Health, if you got rid
or solved a lot of the problems with chronic illnesses, it would go a long way
to lessen the burden of the costs. I think there's a lot of merit in that. I
just want to make the point that I made over and over again: Chronic diseases
impact the health of the population and the sustainability of the health care
system.
When you look at my district, what came first? The
chicken or the egg? I'll use that saying because we have a chronic housing
shortage, we have chronic overcrowding and we have chronic illnesses. Our health
care system costs a lot. It's related; it truly is related. I think prevention
and, also, I think we need to straighten out some of the problems that my
district is dealing with.
I do like the idea of a 20-cent tax on a litre of sugar
drinks but, of course, we need to see the details. I realize this is not coming
out until next year. But if we're going to tax sugary drinks because they impact
the health of our children and all our populations, we have to make sure that
tax is put back into preventative measures and to make sure that we are actually
improving the health care system; that it's not a tax grab where we don't know
where it goes, because that tends to happen.
Another thing in this book is, it talks about a million
dollars towards continued support for the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. In this
book they talk about the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, “which supports the
education, health, and well-being of school-aged children through nutrition.” It
shows the importance, the value this province is placing on the nutrition of our
children. Yet, I talked earlier about three freezer-burnt chicken breast costing
$44, so when it comes to nutrition, we are limited by our choices.
Earlier during Estimates this morning it was brought up
in the House, actually, I think the Member for Lake Melville was talking about
the caribou herd and the decimation of the caribou herd. It's not just the Red
Wine caribou herd; it's the whole George River caribou herd. It's borderline now
whether it can actually can rebound; it's very vulnerable.
We talk about species and the preservation of species
is so important. The Member for Lake Melville, you know, that was his life,
working with wildlife and the environment before he came into the House. It was
the same with me. But what a lot of people don't realize, it's not only about
preserving a species; for us, for the Inuit and the Innu of the North Coast of
Labrador, it was the primary food source for the people.
I remember when the caribou was gone and we weren't
allowed to hunt, that was the agreement; the Nunatsiavut signed on with the
agreement, I remember my mother saying to me: Well, what are you going to live
on? You can only eat so many partridges, because of the meat. You can only eat
so many ducks. But do you want to know something? Every day we could eat
caribou. We could eat caribou 365 days out of the year because you could make it
into soups, you could stew it, you could have roast – so many things with
caribou.
Caribou was our beef, and that's gone. For us, it has
increased the cost of food, but also it decreased the availability of food to
the people, and it's really impacted our nutrition. I think that if had as many
people upset about the extinction of the caribou and about the population of the
caribou, if we had as much of that media and attention and support going to the
Indigenous people for the loss of their primary food, I think we will be a
little bit better off.
I say on the record there has to be something done.
It's something that the Member for Lake Melville and I talked about quite a bit,
actually, especially during the election because during the election was when we
had the Innu come over from Quebec and was hunting caribou that were very, very
low in numbers, actually. I would say that each time the Quebec Innu come over
we're jeopardizing the herd. Eventually, there's not going to be any of those
caribou left, the Red Wine caribou.
My biggest concern is that it's going to be allowed to
continue. If we don't stop it it's going to just continue on. After that herd is
gone then they're going to start coming up towards the North Coast and we will
never be able to have our caribou population rebound. So our food source will be
gone forever.
I do support taxes on cigarettes, but it's very, very
important to actually make sure that the money we take from taxes on cigarettes
goes back into actually helping people quit and deterring the youth from
smoking. I totally support access to sanitary products being free of charge for
students. I think it was my fellow Member from Labrador, Lab West it was,
actually talking about that the other day, or it might have been the other Third
Party.
The thing about it is, there is a huge correlation to
access to sanitary products and attendance in school with young girls. If we're
going to empower young girls we have to make sure they have equal access to
education. That's not discussed very much. So I'm glad that the government is
taking a lead on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L.
EVANS:
Yeah.
Another thing I'd like to talk about is another
sentence in here in this book, still under Health. It says: “Technology is
critical to health care delivery and sustainability, and ultimately enhances
patient care ….” I support increases in technology and improvements in
technology. People think I'm going to talk about the Internet, but I'm not going
to talk about the bad quality of Internet we have and the fact that when people
are going down and trying to have a consult with the doctor they actually can't
because it locks up. I'm not going to talk about that.
What I'm going to talk about now is we have to be
careful, because if you're using technology to compensate for lack of services
like – in my district, it's really difficult to see a doctor. In actual fact, in
my hometown of Makkovik, they actually have not had a doctor come in over a
year. Actually, it's been almost two years. There is actually an agreement where
the doctor is supposed to come every six weeks or whatever.
Being able to see a doctor is difficult, but we can't
use virtual as a substitution. Technology has to enhance the services. If you're
going to substitute a doctor's visit with a doctor consult using something like
Zoom or one of the other programs, you have to make sure that you're just not
increasing the lack of actual medical attention, the quality of service. It's
very, very important for us because right now there are already huge gaps in our
access to quality medical services.
I would be remiss if I didn't actually bring up again
the issue with Postville. My community of Postville has one single nurse.
There's no other nurse in the community. There's no road access to the
community. The only way you can actually get in and out of the community is by
flying in. The problem with having one nurse in a community is that actually
Postville does not have any RCMP, so I say again, if we had a huge crisis, such
as a fire where many people were injured, or even a call-out in the middle of
the night, that single nurse in a remote, isolated community is on her own.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a wonderful day out there. It's great to see the
sunshine, and it has a little bit of heat in it, which is nice.
It's always a pleasure to speak in this hon. House, at
any time, probably more so during COVID, because whoever is speaking gets an
opportunity to take off their mask. If I can speak for longer for 20 minutes,
I'll keep going. Anyway, it's quite the pleasure.
I want to start first by, of course, thanking the
wonderful people of Topsail - Paradise for giving me another opportunity to
represent them in this hon. House. I know they're probably getting sick of me at
the door. Most people have talked about having an election in the winter but in
the last two years, I've done three: a by-election in the winter, a general
election and, of course, another general election in the winter.
Again, I'm always grateful that they put their faith in
me and I'll do what I can for them. I'll always be available and I'll always
listen to them. I'll always do my best and we may also disagree at times. I
think that for all of us in this House of Assembly it goes the same way. We're
here to represent the people of our districts; we're here to do our best.
To the theme that was mentioned earlier about when we
talk about respect in this House, really, I'm not concerned about the respect
for me; I'm concerned about the respect for the people I represent here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
DINN:
I
think we all feel that way. I think that in the heat of the moment, when we
discuss things here, sometimes we do forget that.
Unlike the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port,
unfortunately, I wasn't here as he listed off – I had to step out for a minute –
umpteen communities that he represents. That's wonderful. But my district
represents two towns, two municipalities: Paradise and CBS. I will say those
municipalities have it great. They have it great because each of those
municipalities has three wonderful MHAs representing them.
In Paradise, of course, there's myself; we have the
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island; and we have – I see her waving;
I'm getting there, I left the best until last there – the Member for Mount Scio.
Of course, in CBS – again, I represent part of CBS – you have the Member for
Harbour Main, as well as the Member for CBS. These are two very lucky
communities.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P.
DINN:
Yeah he got his – for the minister responsible, I believe Route 60, in the
Member for CBS's section, is done quite well. I'm hoping for the Route 60
through Topsail to get the same this year.
I just want to talk about these two communities.
Paradise itself is celebrating its 50th anniversary of being incorporated this
year and I believe CBS, maybe in two years' time, will have a similar
celebration. These communities have been around a long time – a long time, like
many of our communities. When you go back and you drive through these
communities, they've certainly grown. You sort of lose sight of their history.
Paradise, of course – woods product was one of their main industries and fishing
and lobster being in CBS. They've come a long way to becoming incorporated.
In my district, I have quite an active seniors'
community. I have many, many young families. There are four K-to-6 schools in my
district. There is a K-to-4 school in my district. There is a new intermediate
school that will be opening. Bordering that, which my district becomes a
catchment area, there is a high school, another middle school and two more
smaller schools, so a very, very young community. Again, I am very happy, very
grateful and very honoured to be representing those in the communities.
I'd be remiss if I did not at least comment on the
shocking news we heard this week of the bodies of 215 children buried near a
residential school in Kamloops. I can't fathom it; I have no words to describe
it. It is shocking; it has to be extremely sad for those families. The first
thing when you see this you say this can't be happening. This is Canada. This is
stuff you see on the news happening somewhere on the other side of the world.
Some of the comments that you hear on social media,
like get over it, that was back in history – no, this is certainly not something
you get over. This is something that we have to deal with, that we have to find
solutions for, that we have to eliminate, eradicate and become a better
community for it.
We must do better. When we talk about reconciliation,
we have to make some real steps. There are some things we do that are token
steps but I think we really have to make some real steps to get past this. You
learn from your history. You can't just ignore it, you learn from your history.
Good or bad or indifferent, you learn from that. That's what makes us a better
people as we move forward. I hope and I pray that as we move forward, we will
make this place a better place for anyone to come live, play and work.
I'm in a new role. When I was elected a couple of years
ago, I was planted in as the critic or shadow minister for a department that I
had been a part of for many years, so not a big shock to me to get in and do
what I had to do there. This time around, I'm the critic or shadow minister for
Health and Community Services, a big portfolio. I certainly appreciate the work
that Minister Haggie and all of his staff, all of his people, have done.
I certainly applaud everybody that has played some part
in helping us to bring COVID under control.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P.
DINN:
Everybody played a part there.
I'm glad to see that we're perhaps coming to somewhere
close to normal. I think that for a lot of us, as politicians people will joke,
oh, you're out kissing babies and cutting ribbons. Yes, that's probably part of
it. We participate, we get out in the communities and that's what you have to
do. As we move to a new state of normal, I'm hoping that we'll be able to do
more of that.
I do want to say for the Minister of Health and
Community Services I'll toss accolades where they're earned. Certainly, he has
done a good job. In this House of Assembly, we talk about people answering
questions when they're asked. I have to say, the minister on many times does
provide an answer. Sometimes it may not be the answer I'm looking for, but he
does present a knowledgeable answer. I appreciate him for that and for doing
that.
Of course, he's gained a bit of notoriety through
COVID. I looked at his Twitter handle, which is @Johnrockdoc, so he's
a little bit of a rock star out there. But I look forward to moving forward in
this as the critic, as the shadow minister for Health and Community Services.
I think we will have some debates here; we will have some back and forth, but I
think, as all of us here in this House of Assembly know, it's like going to
Vegas: What happens in here, when we go outside, we should be able to be as
cordial as we can with each other. This is a bit of theatre, and certainly we
have to take it with a grain of salt.
When I was first elected, unlike when I was a deputy
mayor out in Paradise, I remember a person who happens to be here in the House
with us – her words to me when I came, she said – first words: Mr. Dinn, welcome
to the life in the fishbowl. That's what it is when you're an elected official.
You have to be watching your p's and q's and be on your toes.
I'll just make an observation. It's not a criticism.
I'm not offering advice; it's an observation, because we did have some lengthy
words said yesterday when we talk about respect in this House of Assembly. We
all say things that it's no sooner off the tip of your tongue that you wish you
could pull it back. I'll just use an example. The Premier spoke there maybe last
week, or just after the budget came down, and he made a comment in the news, in
discussions around the university and funding. I think his comment was somewhere
along the lines: The university has to decide what it wants to be when it grows
up.
Potentially a harmless comment, but I got so many
comments on that, so many words used to describe that – and, again, taking into
consideration that there are people out there on social media who just live off
this stuff. I guess it came across as disrespectful. Again, I'm not saying it
was meant that way. This is the life we live in when we're in here. Whether it's
the Premier or whether it's our leader, they're even looked at under a larger
magnifying glass. You sort of take your lead from them.
I think everybody in this House is here for the right
reason. I think we can all learn from the mistakes of all of us and make
ourselves better in here, and be a bit more respectful on both sides and answer
the questions to the best of your ability, and we will ask the questions as we
are. That's our job, to do that.
An example today is when I asked the question on the
sugar tax. Nowhere could I find in the budget or in the documentation, nowhere
in there could I find how much revenue we were going to generate from the sugar
tax. So I asked the question and, of course, the Minister of Finance was quick
in her response of $9 million.
We don't always ask questions to get people caught up
in the wrong answer; we ask them on behalf of the people we represent.
Sometimes, yes, you're trying to trip up the person; other times it's a
straightforward answer. I did have a sidebar with the minister afterwards and
she's going to find it for me. I think it was – I don't want to use words that
she didn't use – but, essentially, it's in taxation somewhere. I'm hoping to see
that uncovered.
That's information that, you know, when you put out a
budget you want to see the details and you want to see the analysis. I do
appreciate that that particular sugar tax is not coming into effect for another
year, so there will be lots of time to discuss that. But you do get those
questions and you do want to know: How much are we getting? Where is it going?
Where are the details? Some of the information we get, for example, from the
Premier's report, I think this budget as well, is not as heavy in details and
analysis as I would like to see. Hopefully, we'll get past that.
I can say I am fully encouraged by the work that's
being done for the Health Accord NL. Our caucus had an opportunity to take in a
presentation from Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis in the past week. Two
fabulous people, two people who know what they're talking about and they're
going to come out and, hopefully, we'll see a final report in December. But I
was totally encouraged, fully encouraged by the approach they're taking and I'm
certainly looking forward to seeing some more detail come out from that report.
The Premier's economic report – well, I'll say it like
it is – is very much lacking in detail. But I'm confident with the Health Accord
that we'll get some firmer detail, rather than what we got in the Premier's
report that we're going to cut regional services by 25 per cent or $25 million –
whatever the figure was. I'm hoping to see more detail come through as we go
along there, but I'm looking forward to that.
The other thing with the Health Accord is it mentions
the words “health outcomes” so many times, which is so good to see because we
tend to react as opposed to be proactive when it comes to issues; it talks about
outcomes. The sugar tax certainly addresses a big issue here in Newfoundland and
Labrador: diabetes. I see where the sugar tax is going there. I don't know if
I'm fully convinced that it's the way. It's probably not a standalone that we
can use. It needs other items put in there. I look at the insulin pumps, the
expanded Insulin Pump Program, which is something we lobbied for, for the last
couple of years, which government brought in last year, brought in in the
budget, which they brought in again this year. Good stuff. But we need to be
taking it a little bit further.
I presented in this House or asked a question in this
House in November past: What are we doing to look at continuous glucose
monitors? What are we doing to look at flash monitors? I asked it again in
December. I'm still waiting for the minister to get back with some information
on that, but the benefits of that are fabulous.
I met with, via Zoom, some medical students who
presented on the diabetic foot supports and what that can do. Maybe we need to
invest in there. They put out a little report. I'm just going to read from it.
This is our future. These are our future students, our future health care
students speaking to us. I guarantee you they're smart – I was going to say
kids, they're young adults. To me, anyone younger than me is considered a kid or
at least 10 years younger.
This is something that we can learn. When I talk about
the sugar tax and we look at how much we're going to save or how is it going to
help us down the road, that's the analysis we look for; getting that 20 cents
off a litre, where's it going? What's going to be our results?
I just want to read out of this report that the
students presented. It was done at the Faculty of Medicine. It's talking about
the foot supports that help prevent amputations. It's Diabetes Canada
information. It says: “Newfoundland and Labrador currently incurs $16-18
million annually in direct costs associated with diabetic foot ulcers … as
well as an additional $2-3 million
annually in indirect costs ….” That's big dollars. You're talking $18
million to $21 million.
“The estimated
cost for a single amputation” – a single amputation – “is $74,000 ….” That's taking people, active people out of the
workforce and costing for more people to look after them. We need to keep the
people working, we need to keep people active. I think there is the start of
steps that way.
I just go on here. “Diabetes Canada estimates that a
provincial offloading device program in Newfoundland and Labrador would
cost between $1.0-$1.6 million annually.”
Considering the cost, a small investment for a bigger return. “However, such a
program is expected to result in gross
direct cost savings of $5.7-$6.1 million annually.”
When we ask questions in the House of Assembly this is
the kind of information we're looking for. We don't want to get right down in
the weeds, how it's going – but what's the preliminary analysis of bringing in a
sugar tax? What's it going to save us? What's it going to do for our economy?
What's it going to do for our people? Of course, there was a report done back in
2017 by the University of Waterloo that talks in generalities about sugar taxes.
Going forward – and we're going to have more time to
talk about the budget – I would hope that we would focus on a little bit more
detail and we'll all be the better for it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
I'd just like to remind everyone that's on the Social
Services Committee, we'll be meeting at 6 p.m. this afternoon to discuss the
Estimates of the Department of Education.
This House does now stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.