October 20, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 24
The
House met at 10 a.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat
Of Arms Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today,
we are introducing for second reading proposed amendments to Schedule A of the
Coat of Arms Act.
SPEAKER:
You need to move and second
it first.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry.
I move,
seconded by the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation,
that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act, be now read a second time.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, if we could have
a brief recess?
SPEAKER:
This House will recess for a
few minutes.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready
for take two?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
just said take two. My apologies to the House this morning, in a little bit of a
rush here this morning set us back a few minutes.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat
of Arms Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, that Bill
20, An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act, now be read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act.” (Bill
20)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today,
we're introducing for second reading proposed amendments to Schedule A of the
Coat of Arms Act. The proposed
amendments seek to change the legal description of the
Coat of Arms Act and to add Labrador to the name of the province and
to replace the word “savages” with “Beothuk.”
I'd like
to take a moment or two to provide some background and general information on
the Coat of Arms Act.
The act
sets out the legal description of Newfoundland and Labrador's official coat of
arms. It also contains the legal authority for the use of the emblem. Like many
traditions and monuments throughout North America, the United Kingdom and
European countries, it dates back hundreds of years and it is an expression of
the views, the language and the culture of that time.
The
written description of our province's coat of arms reflects the original 1637
patent, which does not reference the Labrador portion of the province. This
description also includes racist and colonial phrases. Phrases, Speaker, that
are specifically derogatory to Indigenous peoples.
Needless
to say, it is time that this legal description was changed and that is the
purpose of the amendments that we are discussing today.
Actions
that respect the culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples are an important
step on the path to reconciliation. These proposed changes are part of the
process of building an inclusive environment in the province. It's a step
forward in ensuring that the coat of arms more accurately reflects the people
and cultures of the province.
Changing
the wording is also part of an ongoing review of cultural symbols, observances
and monuments. Symbols, such as statues and monuments should better reflect the
diversity, resilience and history of Indigenous peoples. The inter-departmental
working group continues to look at all observances in our province to find a
path forward on recommendations on how to best recognize and commemorate our
history.
Speaker,
as part of the review of the Coat Of Arms
Act input was sought through an online questionnaire. In total, 201
submissions were received; 29 of those identified as being a member of an
Indigenous community. Over 85 per cent of those identified individuals agreed
with proposed wording changes. Overall, 83 per cent of the respondents agreed
with the change.
Some
respondents also expressed a desire for us to go further. Some have suggested
that the emblem itself be changed. These steps that we're proposing today are
very important and there is nothing to prevent us from looking at further
changes in the future. We continue to consult with Indigenous leaders as we move
forward.
Speaker,
I look forward to hearing the views and any questions from my hon. colleagues on
these proposed amendments. I'm certain we'll support the changes that will
better reflect the culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples. We will work
together to build on these changes and other actions to ensure an inclusive and
respectful environment in the province.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
always an honour to sit in this hon. House and represent the constituents of the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. It's a privilege to speak to this
particular piece of legislation this morning, Bill 20.
I'd like
to thank the minister and the staff for the presentation this morning, and I
look forward to the conversation as we move forward.
Speaker,
our caucus welcomes this long-overdue change to modernize our coat of arms. From
what I understand, this has been a recurring conversation over the years and I'm
glad to see that it's finally to the floor of this hon. House.
Each and
every one of us need to do more to reflect on our relationship with Indigenous
people. This government has been slow with dealing with reconciliation, as
evidenced by the long delay of the lack of apology for the Inuit for the
residential schools, first promised in 2017. And I'd also like to mention that I
note that the Innu feelings of betrayal of the secret rate mitigation talks
which resulted in court action. This symbolism of change must be judged as the
totality of the government's action.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to asking questions further as we go through the
process.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
a long time coming, as we even said in the presentation, especially the part
“and Labrador.” I'm sure the Member from Corner Brook can remember when he was
there in Ottawa when we changed the Constitution to “and Labrador.” As a
province, we've been recognizing “and Labrador” even long before that and we're
only getting around to now putting “and Labrador” in the
Coat of Arms Act. I believe it was first brought up in the '90s to
make sure that “and Labrador” was added to all legislation and staff that
officially dealt with government.
But I'm
glad to see it there today. As a Labradorian, it's important that we, in
Labrador, are also recognized for our contribution to this province and our
distinct heritage and culture that make up Labrador. I'm sure most Members here,
who have been there, can tell when you go to Labrador, you know you're in
Labrador. I do welcome that and it just seems like a bit of a long time to wait
until we get it.
Removing
such derogatory language in this act, especially the description of the coat of
arms, which is one of the official seals of this province, its official symbol
and having derogatory language in its description is, one, not really a
surprise, coming from colonialism and how things were, unfortunately, in the
past. But it's great that we are going to delete that and put in a more correct
and appropriate description that actually is more in kind.
But, at
the same time, we also have to look at what other pieces of legislation, what
other pieces of descriptions and stuff that do sit in the archives of this
province that, you know, maybe they also need to be updated and changed. Maybe
we can have a broader scope and look at where we can do better as a society, as
a people, as a province, to better reflect the true aspects of what is this
province.
I look
forward to seeing what other things we can move forward with and start on the
path of healing as a province. We do have a very large and distinct Indigenous
population in this province so it's time to reflect those beautiful cultures
that we do all share and we love.
I do
support this and, obviously, I will support this as a great change. But, at the
same time, let's all reflect on how we can do better, as a province, how we can
change things and work towards a reconciliation and make sure that maybe there
are other things that we could do that, you know, better reflect how we act and
how we go forward.
We talk
about systemic racism; we talk about other things that are prevalent. So let's
all do better and let's all go forward mindful and thinking that when we do
something, we have to make sure that we're doing stuff from the best interests
but also out of a place of kindness and out of a place of healing and
reflection.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
take a couple of minutes to speak to Bill 20, amendments to the coat of arms. I
will say that I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Labrador West; he made
some good points. Labrador certainly is a unique place and it is a tremendous
privilege to call that beautiful part of the province home for those of us born
and raised there, I can tell you that.
The
amendments to the coat of arms, as has already been said, really are about two
things, Speaker. It is about adding Labrador to the description. We know that
the Coat of Arms Act sets out the
legal description of the Newfoundland and Labrador's official coat of arms and
contains the legal authority for use of that emblem. It surprised me, too, that
has been around since 1637, the patent, and we're just now adding Labrador.
We've seen the call for Labrador to be added to the MUN act, for example, and
there are other things that are unfolding.
We've
been a long time working toward taking our rightful place, but I think – and my
colleague is nodding; he understands. Some of us have spent years advocating on
the ground for things and it is just coming to me now that he was on the western
end and I was on the southern border when we flew the Labrador flag, and that
was also a proud moment for us.
Also,
Speaker, when I look up over where you're sitting this morning and I look at the
coat of arms and then you read the description – such racist and colonial
phrases that are attached with the coat of arms. Written in old English, I mean,
it speaks to the savages and the attire for war when, really, what we have is
two Beothuk people and they're basically in their ceremonial dress.
So it is
long overdue that we're changing the language, and it is a part of a bigger
picture. As a government, as the first minister in this province responsible for
Indigenous Affairs and truth and reconciliation, it is both a privilege and also
a weight that I feel with that. We've been taking a number of steps. First of
all, to acknowledge the pain, the trauma, the harms of the past. We have to
atone, but then people need to see action.
It was
just last week in Corner Brook – the Premier and I, and a number of my
ministerial colleagues were present, as well as the MHA for Corner Brook – we
held a third annual Premier-Indigenous Leaders' Roundtable. Some very good,
meaningful discussion.
Every
week, the Premier and I meet with the Indigenous leaders in the province.
Because how can we represent a people, how can we understand their unique
history, their perspectives, how do we get to a place of advancing their
interest if we don't have good, solid communications? That's what this regular
dialogue has been about. Building on these relationships, developing a greater
understanding and then moving forward on some of our shared action items.
We did
have a great day in Corner Brook. I'll also add that, as a government, we
recently declared September 30 as a Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I got to
spend that, again, with my colleague from Corner Brook. We participated in some
events by Qalipu First Nation. I was going to say it's a wonderful day. We don't
say a holiday. It's a day of reflection. We encourage people to use the day to
reflect, to learn, to educate, to maybe watch something about residential
schooling, to take a walk, to read a book, to give some depth to their current
understanding.
I was
pleased to be a part of a government that took those first steps. Also, just
mentioned here in the House this morning, Speaker, were the apologies for
residential schools. This government did make a commitment to apologize. I was
actually in Happy Valley-Goose Bay – testing my memory now – it might have been
November '17, I'm not sure, when the prime minister came in and did the
country's apology for residential schools. A very emotional day; people that had
had a very painful past, things suppressed for decades. There were supports
around and it was a very emotional day.
We made
the commitment and we are definitely following through on that commitment. As my
colleague, the Minister of Health, sometimes says: A tiny thing got in the way.
So we were moving forward on the apologies and then COVID hit and there was a
mutual statement, a shared, joint statement that went out – some folks would
recall – from Nunatsiavut Government in that case and this provincial government
saying we will delay. We are now actively working, moving forward with the
apologies. They're going to look a little bit different. We're working closely,
so the wishes and the desires of Nunatsiavut, for example, may look a little bit
different than what NunatuKavut Community Council would like. But make no
mistake, I say to this hon. House, that we are honouring that commitment and it
is very much an active file.
I don't
think I need to keep speaking for the sake of speaking, other than to say I'm
tremendously pleased to see these amendments come to the coat of arms. My
colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, did a fantastic
job. She's new in her role, but she's doing a great job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. DEMPSTER:
When she outlined that this
is not maybe a be-all, end-all, this is a step and it doesn't mean that we're
not going to make further changes down the road. However, in the consultation
process we did receive feedback; 85 per cent were in support of changing the
coat of arms.
In terms
of action items, you know, this is just one step. Sometimes in here when we're
bantering back and forth and we have lively spirited debate – and that is as it
should be; that is democracy – we'll often hear why did it take so long and why
are you only there now. We can't go back and change the past, but every day is a
chance to make a new beginning. You've heard me say it here before in this
House. One of the Indigenous leaders in our province said it a number of times:
Never, in their history, have they had an open door at the Premier's level like
they have now. I believe that is where reconciliation starts.
Will we
always get it right? No. Will there always be more to be done? Absolutely. Our
Liberal caucus, as a part of giving depth to our understanding of our Indigenous
peoples and their history in our province, we had a day of cultural sensitivity
training. I had a number of colleagues sitting around me that were saying: I
never knew that. I never knew. So it made you feel good that yes, this is
worthwhile doing and we need to do more of it.
When we
know better, Speaker, we do better. With that, I'm very happy to support the
amendments to the coat of arms and I look forward to listening to continued
discussion.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to represent a district in Labrador, Lake Melville, and to work
with my colleagues from Labrador and across the province on such an important –
maybe some would say small, but incredibly significant and incredibly
representative of so much of the challenge that I think we face as
representatives whether we're political leaders, Indigenous leaders, municipal
leaders and so on to try to bring this province together.
As my
colleague from Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair just said, in looking at the coat of
arms over the top of your head, it's quite striking when you reflect back
hundreds of years how attitudes and times have changed.
I just
wanted to put out a few thoughts. This concept of adding “and Labrador” has been
something I've noticed since I first arrived in the province back in 1987. I
remember a reporter saying once: Premier and Ms. Peckford will be out of the
province the next week touring Labrador. That was when it first struck me, and I
said: Oh my gosh, we have a lot to overcome.
Here are
just some of the things I think about a lot in my day-to-day routine. I like to
get up early in the morning and listen to the radio, and it's really interesting
to listen to, for example, the CBC broadcast out of Goose Bay, the
Labrador Morning, versus the Morning
Show here in St. John's. Both good-quality shows, but they start very
differently.
Here in
St. John's there's a preamble and then there's that beautiful song the “Ode to
Newfoundland.” It's very well done, they use a variety of performers and they
sing those beautiful words. In Labrador – I'm looking at my colleague from
Labrador West and others – we hear the “Ode to Labrador,” and it's sung in
Inuktitut, Innu-aimun and in English. Also a beautiful tune, completely
different themes, nevertheless, still very reflective of the passion and the
support for the land that they call home. I'll throw out that thought.
There's
a friend of mine – I won't mention her name because she probably wouldn't
appreciate that, but she will appreciate this comment. I'm aware of many who
have tried to find ways, for example, to how can we combine a provincial theme.
I was born in Nova Scotia. “Farewell to Nova Scotia” is that song that we
developed, but Nova Scotia, with the exception of Cape Breton, is basically a
contiguous piece of geography with lots of development. That's very different
for Labrador and for Newfoundland. Two quite different histories, two quite
different demographics, advancements in progress and infrastructure and so on,
and you often see a lot of the themes that the four of us who represent Labrador
will be talking about versus those here on the Island. Anyway, small moves like
adding “and Labrador” are very, very, important.
I also
just wanted to put out another comment and it's a personal experience. Back in
the '90s and through into the early 2000s, I was working a lot in Russia and I
convinced the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay to twin with a community in
northern Russia. At the time the mayor was a fine, fine elder, name of Harry
Baikie. Harry was very well known in Labrador. He was just that solid-Labrador
statesmen that we all recognize, the strong leadership who really think and then
say something very wise.
Anyway,
I said one time to Harry during this trip: Your Worship, have we ever thought
about calling Happy Valley-Goose Bay – why don't we just officially move it to
the term “Goose Bay”? A lot of people refer to the municipality of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay; they call it Goose Bay.
He sat
me down and gave me a very good, detailed explanation of how Happy Valley-Goose
Bay came together. I don't want to belabour it in this Legislature, except to
say that Happy Valley and Goose Bay were two separate communities who came
together. The struggle that the folks who occupied the area called Happy Valley,
they went through a lot. It was during the war and people came in from mostly
coastal Labrador, some from Newfoundland, and the idea of “happy” was really an
oxymoron because it was anything but happy. They had to live six miles from the
base where they were working, while they were switching to a wage economy. They
had to build a home and make sure that their family was actually in a safe,
secure situation.
It was a
struggle and those first few families are annually recognized for their
contribution to establish a community against amazing hardships. He said: That's
why we say Happy Valley-Goose Bay. As we say “Newfoundland and Labrador,” it's
reflecting the effort and the hardships of both pieces of geography. This is a
huge piece of geography that we occupy in the Canadian Federation, and
recognizing it in our coat of arms is so important.
In terms
of the word “savages,” it goes without saying; attitudes have shifted
dramatically. I'm sure there are many other examples as we are doing with
yourself, Speaker, in dropping the pronouns of Mr. and Mrs. I think it's just
the whole realization of the steps that we can all do to accommodate and
recognize the struggles that so many are dealing with and do what we can to
support them.
If I can
just throw this out, after we left here last night, I have this little – how
could I say it? I'm a Survivor fan. I
like watching this crazy TV show Survivor.
I'm not sure why, but I think it's interesting to watch people under stress and
how they make decisions. I was catching up on an episode last night when I
should have probably been sleeping. But I watched the episode last night – and
if anyone's a fan you might know where I'm going. Jeff, who came out to the
show, he has everybody gathered there and before he gets going with the show
last night – I'm going to just bring up something here now – he said: What is
the phrase always used to invite you all in for whenever there's a competition
and so on? The phrase he always uses: Come on in, guys.
He asked
them all: Do you find that acceptable? There was a woman who identified herself
as a homosexual, others were different persuasions and so on and he said: Do you
find this offensive? I thought, wow, this is interesting, the realization across
the world, in so many walks of life, of the incorrect use of so many of these
terms. Anyway, they decided to go and continue on with the phrase last night,
but it was a good, healthy discussion that they were dealing with that, as we
are dealing with here today.
I thank
the government for making this move. I understand that there were efforts to try
to fix this years ago. I'm not sure what the hesitation or delay was, but I'm
very happy to see it here today.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
S. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill, An Act to Amend the Coat of
Arms Act, and to reflect on some points that I think are important here. I won't
take my full time, I don't think.
It's
important to look back, I guess, at the history of coat of arms, if we are to
look at why this is important. Coat of arms have their origin in the Middle Ages
when people would wear a tunic in battle and it would have a symbol of who they
were, what family they were from. It would help identify people in a battle or
after a battle, probably.
That's
the origin of the coat of arms. From there, they sort of evolved into a symbol
of a group of people, a family, a university or a group of people, a guild of
workers and things like that. Coat of arms became symbols of things, of groups
of people and states adopted coat of arms as well to represent who they were and
what they stood for.
That's a
little bit of a quick history of coat of arms. Ours was established back in 1637
and, as others have said, a lot has changed in the world since then. I think
it's good that we look at the words used to describe our coat of arms and how we
look at them.
Some
people may say: Okay, these are minor changes. But the words we use are
important because it reflects and influences the way we think about things. That
is why I think these changes, although they may be small, they have a big impact
and they are important.
The
district I represent has a high portion of Indigenous people, maybe one of the
highest in the province. I've had an opportunity to sit down with some elders
and with some young people as well to talk about, in particular, Mi'kmaq culture
and the suppression of Mi'kmaq culture in our history as a province, and even
before we were a province. I think it's important to realize that we have some
hard truths, I think, to face as a people and as a province in terms of the way
Indigenous people have been treated throughout our history and I think it's
important to recognize these.
As I
talk to some of the elders, they told me of a time when parents and grandparents
would not talk in the Mi'kmaq language in front of their grandchildren or their
children because they feared that there was such a stigma attached with being a
Mi'kmaw that they feared it would impact their children if they went to school
and spoke Mi'kmaq. So there was a severe suppression of culture and cultural
practices in this province. That is part of our history and part of the truth
that we have to recognize.
I think
it has been encouraging the last few years in particular, I've seen a revival in
Mi'kmaq culture in my district and other places in the province. For example,
one of the cultural things in my district is the Flat Bay powwow, which is held
each year in the summer. It's a great opportunity to learn more about Mi'kmaq
culture. It's open to the general public to come. I would encourage people who
are interested in learning more about our Indigenous cultures to attend a
powwow, either the one in Flat Bay or there's also one in Conne River. I just
attended a couple of weeks ago a powwow that was held at Grenfell Campus in
Corner Brook.
So
there's been a rebirth in the Mi'kmaq culture, revival, people are learning the
language and we're seeing a lot of activity in those regards. So that's good to
see.
I think
in conclusion I just want to say the things that we're doing, they are
important. In terms of the symbols that we have in this province, it's important
that we change the wording that we use, because it represents the way we think
about issues and the way we think about culture and the way we are more
inclusive. Because I think we can all learn a lot from each other, we can learn
a lot from the Indigenous cultures in this province and I think we should be
open to doing that. I think changing the language that we use is an important
part of changing the way we think.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to voting in favour of this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes now for Bill 20, more so just for the record
for Hansard, I suppose. I'm sure
everybody in the House of Assembly is going to support this bill. I can't
imagine anybody who would not. I certainly will.
As has
been said, there are only a couple of slight changes from the perspective of the
bill itself and what's written here. But the meaning behind it is obviously
huge.
As has
been said, there are two aspects to this. One is to remove the term in the
description of the Beothuk people, I guess, and arguably, Indigenous people in
general that described them as savages, which we all, I'm sure, agree 100 per
cent that that may have been the view back in the 1600s or whenever this was
established under colonial rule and so on. But it's certainly not reflective of
any of the Members of this House of Assembly I'm sure and I believe society in
general. It's unacceptable.
Newfoundland has certainly changed over the years, like everywhere I suppose, in
terms of our culture, in terms of our attitudes, but even now, more so than ever
before, people are more open about who they are as a person, about their
sexuality, how they identify which is a good thing. We have people coming here
from all over the country, all over the world, different cultures, different
religious beliefs and customs and so on, and it's important that Newfoundland
and Labrador – we do have a reputation, certainly across the country, for being
a welcoming province, for being, generally, good people, always there to help.
Certainly, we've seen that, we celebrate that through the efforts of 911 as an
example, and the Come From Away
productions that sort of celebrate who we are as a people, always out there to
help others and so on.
It's
important that throughout our province, throughout our communities and certainly
here in this Legislature and certainly even when we look at things like our coat
of arms that they are reflective of our values; that they are reflective of an
attitude that we want to be the prevailing attitude here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, that everybody is welcome; that we are totally inclusive to all; that
we're welcoming to all; that everybody is valued; that everybody should be
afforded the same level of dignity and respect and opportunity regardless of
race or religion or sexual orientation and so on.
Removing
what is, obviously, racist – I mean, there's no denying that – that word
“savages” there in the description of our coat of arms is obviously the right
thing to do. And as has been said, it's kind of amazing it took this long to get
it done. I'm not being critical of this government, in terms of taking them so
long; I just mean in the sense that it's amazing that it took us until 2021 for
someone to finally look at that and say: My goodness, this is wrong; it needs to
go. So it's obviously good that we're doing it now and, certainly, I'm glad to
be able to vote for this and be a part of removing that blight on our province,
because that's what it is.
The
other piece of this is to include Labrador under the name of the coat of arms
because we are one province of course. I was a little confused in that I was of
the impression – and someone, maybe the minister, can correct me on this one,
and maybe my memory is not serving me properly. At one point in time – I think
it was under Premier Williams; I wasn't here at the time – I thought we renamed
the province “Newfoundland Labrador” and we took out the “and” part. Because I
thought at the time there were people saying that Labrador is not an add-on;
Labrador is just as equal as the Newfoundland piece. So I thought that the
province was actually called Newfoundland Labrador, versus Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I've
heard people say “and Labrador,” so I'm not sure why the word “and” is here in
terms of the amendment and why we're not just adding “Labrador” as opposed to
“and Labrador.” If we removed it from the terms of the province, I don't why we
would want to have the “and” here because the meaning is the same. If we're
trying to establish the fact that we're all one province, we're all equal,
Labrador is, indeed, not an add-on, or an afterthought or whatever you might
want or someone could construe it as, that it's Newfoundland Labrador. So I just
wanted to point that out. Maybe there's a reason why “and” has to be there, I
don't know what it is, but I wanted to point that out.
Because
obviously Labrador, as we know – and I hear this from people from Labrador all
the time and I understand why they would feel that way. I mean, much of the
benefits that we derive here in this province, like, as an example, when oil
prices plummeted and the oil industry was in great distress, it was actually the
mining industry that was really, you know, contributing in a huge way to our
provincial coffers, to our economy and so on, and that continues to be the case.
I'm sure my colleagues from Labrador would agree that Labrador has and will
continue for a long time to contribute to our province, whether it be our hydro
resources or whether it be our mining resources and so on. Also, even from the
perspective of outfitters and stuff like, anyone who's into those types of
things.
There's
a lot of ways in which Labrador contributes to our provincial coffers, to our
provincial economy, and it is important that we do everything that we can as a
province and as a Legislature to try to close any divide that may be there in
the minds of the people because, clearly, there are many people – that divide is
still there in many ways. Many people I know in Labrador, it's a sensitive issue
and I get it. I really do. We need to do whatever we can in this Legislature to
promote the idea that we are, indeed, one province and that no one part of the
province is any important or any less valued than any other part of the
province.
Adding
Labrador to our official coat of arms, I think, is a good step in promoting
unity and so on. But, again, the only point I would make once again for the
record is that I'm wondering about the “and Labrador” part. If there's a
legitimate reason why it has to be that way, fine. If not, then I would
certainly recommend an amendment – I'm not making an official amendment; maybe
the government wants to make an amendment – to take out the “and,” and just add
“Labrador” as opposed to “and Labrador.”
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Any other speakers to the bill?
If the
Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, we will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
encouraging to hear people have the same perspective here. As often as we meet
and how enjoyable it is when we don't always see eye-to-eye on some of our
issues, it's very encouraging and it makes me very proud when we stand together
on an issue and move forward. I think we can all agree wholeheartedly that this
is good for our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
K. HOWELL:
To your point there, to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I do have an
answer for you. The province is actually called Newfoundland and Labrador. The
government was renamed Newfoundland and Labrador in the
Labrador Act of 1964. Through a
constitutional amendment in 2001, the province is named Newfoundland and
Labrador. The “and” was actually removed from branding efforts. So much of the
promotional materials and stuff like that removed the “and.”
To that
point, we do want to include Labrador and I think we all recognize the
importance and the value added to our province. Most of the comments did add
that and dictated how important it is to include that in part of our history and
the contributions and uniqueness that the Labrador portion of our province
brings –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
getting hard to hear the speaker. Thank you.
K. HOWELL:
– in the challenges that they
face, their culture, their resources, their history, it certainly is a portion
of our province that we must continue to support and identify.
I know a
lot of the comments were about why it's taken us so long. I think, when we know
better, we do better, to quote a lady that gave some training from First Light.
As we move forward and recognize that these things have to happen, we take
appropriate actions when we can. The journey of 100 miles begins with a single
step, so here we are. As a government we're taking this first step forward, so
we appreciate the support and agreement together.
I look
forward to how we progress and how we move forward on the path to truth and
reconciliation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 20 now be read a second time.
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.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Coat Of Arms Act. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
20)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve
itself in a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat
of Arms Act.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt them motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.” (Bill 20)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Chair.
As I
said, our caucus welcomes this change, but I do have some questions.
Can the
minister outline the external consultations held, aside from the public online
process, and what Indigenous groups were consulted?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
To my understanding, the
consultations went out online as you mentioned and everybody had equal
opportunity to comment on that. I do know that letters of consultations were
sent out to the leaders of the Indigenous groups. I don't know specifically
which ones, but I can get that information for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Were community stakeholders
in Labrador consulted, such as the Combined Councils?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
To my knowledge, the letters
went to the Indigenous leaders and their involvement. But, as I mentioned, the
Combined Councils did have opportunity to contribute their information or
questions, concerns, via the online portal.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
After speaking with my
colleague from Bonavista who has informed me that there's a plaque on the
courthouse in that town that includes references to savages, what will be the
estimated cost to making these changes when we're looking at printing of papers,
modification to plaques, uniforms, et cetera?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
At this time, I don't have
that information to provide to you, but I will get back to you with that
information as it becomes available. I know that there are significant steps
that are going to have to be taken. This is something that's been used in our
history for a long time. So we're going to have to evaluate where it is, what it
is and how we take it back.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Former
Premier Ball announced a review of historic monuments and statues in June of
2020. Was this decision part of this particular process? If so, can you table
that review?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The interdepartmental working
group is reviewing all of the emblems, the statues and all the holidays or
associations as we move forward. We're consulting heavily with the Department of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation on that one.
If you
need more information on that we can certainly give you what the
interdepartmental working group has.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Can the
minister explain – I know this is a necessary first step and we applaud the
government for taking this but why is it taking so long? Why is it 2021?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I can't speak to that. I
imagine that this is certainly something that has come up lately in our
government that has become a priority. We have committed to truth and
reconciliation moving forward and certainly put it top of mind so now there is a
focus on it to move forward and certainly putting it on the forefront of
everything that we do.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
My last question, Chair.
Indigenous groups have also spoken out about the Corte-Real statue across the
street from this very building as it being insulting. Is there any update on
that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I'll defer to my colleague
here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In my
role our department has been tasked to do a review of all observances and
inventory in the province. We'll work, not only along with the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs but, certainly, the Minister Responsible for
Labrador Affairs, and Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation in our entire
inventory as we move forward.
It's my
understanding the inventory has been completed and we'll work our way through
that inventory.
CHAIR:
Any further questions?
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My
question is: Are we doing a complete review of all current legislation that is
currently active adding “and Labrador” to at this time?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
To my knowledge that's not
something that we were focused on, at this point. We picked certain emblems and
statues that we wanted to move forward with. But we're on a path of
reconciliation here so all these things have to be part of our consideration.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
I'm good.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Coat of
Arms Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 20.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 20.
Is the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 20 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 20 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move
that this House do now recess.
SPEAKER:
This House do recess until 2
p.m. this afternoon.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
This is a moment.
My
privilege concerns the lighting here, which is really making it difficult even
to look to the other side or to focus on work. It's three days now trying to
adjust to it, and there's no adjustment to it. Even looking straight across,
there's a glare coming at me, and I'm assuming that it's the same for a lot of
other Members. When it comes to anyone who's light sensitive or prone to other
headaches, migraines and so on and so forth, this is not making a conducive work
environment.
Personally speaking, if there's a way, as a remedy, to dim the lights or to
soften the effect or to reposition them so that they are actually downward, not
an angle – because I would assume when it's on this side here, the angle is
going this way, that's coming down this way and it's right in our line of sight.
I don't
know who put them up there, but maybe they need to be brought back and
repositioned or to scatter them in a place so that it's actually facing down and
not on an angle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
I thank the Member for the
point of privilege. There is a process. We do ask that point of privilege does
get brought before myself an hour or so before the House opens. But I will
definitely take your concern under consideration.
If other
Members have a similar concern, please drop me an email just to see if it's a
general consensus among all Members, or if it's just Members with light –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand the process, but I would agree with the Member that there may be a
remedy. I don't know if it's angle or if it's every second one or something just
to try. I know from this vantage point, we can't read the clock on the other
side even.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
We will
take that under advisement. We can look at different things with regard to
dimming or potentially changing the angles.
Before
we get started, I'd like to first of all recognize and congratulate the new
interim Leader of the Third Party, the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Also, now the Third Party
House Leader will be the Member for Labrador West.
Congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Today we also have a new Page
here, Emma McIsaac. Emma is from St. John's and is studying science at Memorial
University.
Welcome,
Emma.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of St. John's Centre, Topsail
- Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue, Torngat Mountains and Ferryland.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2002,
members of Rotary St. John's East began a partnership with the teachers and
staff of Bishop Abraham Elementary to enrich the lives of its 200 students and
their families.
Rotary's
Christmas hamper project provided full hampers – well beyond the turkey dinner –
to 10 families most in need. This initiative transformed into Project 365 to
provide food support to families year-round. Steve Wedgwood even visits with
Santa each year with milk and cookies for all students.
The
annual Slam Dunk Basketball Tournament, organized by the school and sponsored by
Rotary, raises between $5,000 and $8,000 annually and is the largest fundraiser
in the school.
Rotary
International Global Grant and Rotary St. John's East installed a $75,000 school
playground dedicated to Rotary's past president, Brian Martin.
With the
help of other community partners, Rotary Club essentially adopted Bishop Abraham
Elementary and arranged for donations of SMART Boards, band equipment, a new
piano and books for the school library, in addition to an annual payment to
support curricular and extra-curricular activities.
I ask
Members to join me in celebrating Bishop Abraham Elementary and St. John's East
Rotary for their enduring partnership to offer more to students, from all walks
of life, and their families.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
honoured to congratulate two talented young musicians: Summer Bennett, 13, and
Mackenzie Critch, 16, from the District of Topsail - Paradise who were first-
and third-place winners at the Newfound Talent Contest at MusicNL. Talented
musicians 19 and under from across the province performed at the event in front
of a panel of three award-winning judges.
Aimed at
being a catalyst for propelling the careers of young musicians in Newfoundland
and Labrador, the purpose of the contest is to discover, develop, encourage and
showcase young entertainers. The competition offers professional development
prizes valued at over $6,000 to aid talented young performers so they can take
their song writing and performing skills to the next level.
One of
the judges, Evelyn Jess, said: Watching these young performers felt like I was
watching artists well-beyond their years. The superb talent in our province
remains rich and vibrant and I cannot wait to see how these brilliant musicians
will excel in their future careers.
Speaker,
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Summer and Mackenzie and
wish them continued success in their music endeavors.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I sit in
this hon. Chamber today to show my appreciation for all candidates and their
teams during the 2021 municipal elections.
As we
all know in this Chamber, it takes a team to be elected; this is not a
one-person job. I would like to extend my thank you to all the campaign teams
whether it was knocking on doors or ensuring people get out to vote on the big
day, you all played a vital role in this election.
I would
also like to say thank you to the candidates who were unsuccessful in this
previous election, it takes a tremendous amount of courage to step into the
public eye. Continue to work hard for your communities and I hope to see your
names back on the ballot in the next municipal election.
As for
the newly elected and re-elected councillors and mayors in our beautiful
District of Placentia West - Bellevue, I would like to share my sincere
congratulations. I look forward to working with each and every one of you for
the betterment of our towns during our time in office.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
pay tribute to Rutie Dicker of Nain, Nunatsiavut. Rutie is a soft-spoken role
model with a strong work ethic mirrored only by her compassion for others.
Rutie
started working summers in the fish plant when she was 15 years old. During the
winter months, she and her sister, Rosie, would find part-time jobs to earn
extra money. Her next job was at the Nain clinic where she worked as a nursing
assistant for five years. She often translated for those struggling with English
but she also translated across the cultural barriers for the nursing staff,
improving the level of health care in her community.
In 1995,
she started work with the Labrador Inuit Association and continues her work with
Nunatsiavut, 26 years later.
She has
witnessed much change, not all of it for the better. Throughout her life, Rutie
has quietly helped people. Rutie recently told me: When I see people struggling,
to ease my mind, I try to help them in any way I can. That sums up Rutie Dicker.
Today, I
want to recognize her exceptional attributes, her ability to lead by example.
Rutie has suffered great loss. Earlier on, she lost two nieces and two nephews
to suicide and then she lost several of her immediately family, most recently
her grandson. Rutie speaks about her loss and its impact to her and her
community. She recognizes the serious burden that comes with loss and trauma and
the importance of dealing with it head on. Don't ignore your grief and loss
because it just gets buried; that's what Rutie told me just recently.
Over her
lifetime, she's always helped others: that makes her a good role model. She also
advocates and practices self-help and healing when dealing with loss and trauma:
that makes her a leader.
Please
join me today in applauding Rutie Dicker for all she does to make our world a
healthier place.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I wish
to recognize Mr. Bill Guiney for his tremendous work in raising funds and
awareness for mental health. Six years ago, Bill started a push-up challenge as
a fundraiser for the Canadian Mental Health Association, NL chapter. This has
now become an annual event.
The past
summer, Mr. Guiney walked across Newfoundland to raise funds and awareness for
mental health and incorporated his annual push-up challenge. He began his walk
in Port aux Basque on July 20 and finished off on Signal Hill on August 20. He
walked the Trans-Canada Highway until Route 90, then onto the Irish Loop from
there he went to Signal Hill. Mr. Guiney walked a total of 1,059 kilometres and
completed 10 push-ups for every kilometre, for a total of 10,590 push-ups.
Many
people joined him from time to time to walk with him along the way. As they
walked they talked, and each one of them, at one point or another, opened up and
spoke about their own or a loved one's mental health crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all my colleagues of this House to join me and congratulate Mr.
Bill Guiney on his work in raising funds and awareness for mental health.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
pleased today to recognize October 18 to 24 as Waste Reduction Week in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is celebrating Waste Reduction Week through a
popular online composting workshops focused on continued composting through the
fall and winter. They also have a digital public awareness campaign aligned with
theme days and Government House was lit blue and green on Monday past in
recognition of this week.
This
week and every week, we all need to take time to be environmental stewards and
raise awareness about the importance of waste reduction.
The
provincial government encourages individuals, businesses and schools throughout
the province to celebrate Waste Reduction Week and discover alternate ways to
advance waste reduction.
The
MMSB's website contains valuable tips and resources that highlight waste
reduction activities and information that the public can use to reduce waste in
our province.
Speaker,
we continue to work with the MMSB, regional service boards, businesses and
communities to adopt modern waste management practices across the province,
including increased waste diversion programs. We have many successful
initiatives including extended producer responsibility programs and more to
come.
This
week, I encourage everyone to do something with friends and family to help
reduce waste in our homes and communities. We call all do our part to reduce
waste and protect our environment.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I join
the minister to recognize October 18 to 24 as Waste Reduction Week in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Waste Reduction Week in Canada is an important
national campaign that helps build awareness around issues of sustainability and
responsible consumption. It encourages choice for more environmentally
responsible products and services and promotes actions that divert more waste
from landfills, reducing air pollution, water pollution and land pollution and
conserves our natural resources.
We
proudly acknowledge the many schools and businesses and communities that are
leading the way in our province on reducing waste. Important leaders such as the
community of Cape St. George on the Island's West Coast, their backyard
composting program reduced waste tonnage in the community by almost over 50 per
cent while also reducing local garbage fees in the process.
We are
the solution to pollution. I ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do our
part to help reduce waste in our schools, businesses and communities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
It's going to take a while to
get used to that one – interim.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I join the minister in
recognizing Waste Reduction Week and commend him on encouraging us to be
environmental stewards and to do our best to reduce waste and protect the
environment. However, if the provincial government is committed to environmental
stewardship and to protecting the environment, then act immediately to stop the
leaking of the Shoal Point oil wells rather than squabbling with its federal
cousins over who is responsible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
Speaker, I'm energized to
work with my Premier and my colleagues on a government-wide initiative to
respond to our province's serious demographic challenges by encouraging new
skills, new talents and new people to call Newfoundland and Labrador their home.
As we
know, Speaker, we have our challenges. We have an aging population, we have a
declining birth rate and we have a clear and present shortage of people to fill
job vacancies which are found all over this province. Unanswered help wanted
signs are all around us.
While we
continue to invest over $150 million annually to train and to upskill
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the jobs of today and tomorrow, this will
not solve our demographic reality.
To power
up our immigration performance, a suite of initiatives has been launched that
extends from promotion to positive resettlement and all of this is meant to
reach our goal of receiving 5,100 newcomers a year by 2026. Speaker, immigration
is finally getting the resources it needs and deserves. But it's smart public
policy that is its strongest driving force.
In
addition to opening up new immigration pathways, our government is working
directly with employers that are facing skills and talent shortages. We're
promoting more awareness of immigration sponsorship as a human resources option
and we are working directly with international graduates of both MUN and CNA, as
well as other newcomers whom Ottawa has granted open work permits to match them
with eager employers.
Our
Pathways Job Matching initiative has already proven to be welcomed new tool to
advancing our immigration efforts.
Speaker,
when we launched our Priority Skills pathway earlier this year, we knew it would
be a valuable resource in attracting more health care professionals to our
province. Newcomers will not only serve the health care needs of newcomers, they
will help serve the health care needs of everyone in our province. This is a
win, win, win proposition. Now, with our Job Matching initiative, the needs of
our broader business community, our employers, will also be better met.
Speaker,
we are a welcoming place in Newfoundland and Labrador and we shall continue to
welcome newcomers to Newfoundland and Labrador today and in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Speaker,
I join the minister in recognizing the need for enhanced immigration to our
province and the tangible benefits that newcomers bring to the table.
Among
the health care crisis in our province, we are also given a real demographic
population crisis. As the Health Accord team has outlined, the monumental shift
in our demographics and population as a result of the cod moratorium is still
being felt today.
Investments to train and to upskill Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is
certainly welcome news. Opening up new immigration pathways to newcomers is
certainly welcome news as well. I look forward to hearing updates from the hon.
Member on the success of these programs and of any potential to improve
population growth right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement and I applaud any effort and
investment to train and upskill Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and support any
initiative to attract and retain newcomers to our province.
A key
strategy – a retention strategy, of course – of newcomers and livyers alike will
be to implement a minimum wage that is also a living wage; otherwise, we are
importing workers who will have no choice but to accept poverty wages or move to
other jurisdictions for a better standard of living.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People
in our province experience the highest rate of mortality in Canada due to heart
disease and stroke.
I ask
the Premier: Since COVID started, how many people have died while awaiting
cardiac surgery in our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
have that number off the top of my head. Certainly, we recognize that we spend
the most per person for a province on a health care, more than any other
jurisdiction. And we're not getting the results we need. So I share the theme of
that question with the Member opposite. That's why we've recognized this is an
incredible challenge, and it's a difficult one. There is no easy solution.
That's why we created the Health Accord.
But
every single Member here was elected not to fix the easy challenges, Mr.
Speaker, but indeed to tackle the difficult ones. This is a difficult one that
we can all tackle together through using the Health Accord NL to create the
long-term, sustainable future that we know is needed for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
thoughts are with the families who've lost loved ones while waiting for
critical, life-saving procedures like cardiac surgery.
I ask
the Premier: How many people are waiting for cardiac surgery in this province
today?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We have
made significant inroads in our cardiology program thanks to the provincial
approach that Dr. Connors and his team at the Health Sciences Centre have taken.
We have minimum wait times for inpatient cardiac cath of urgent nature, less
than a day – maybe a day and a half. We have had periods over the summer where
there have been no inpatients waiting for a cardiac cath. We are working
downstream now to address the issue of wait times for cardiac surgery and we
have a new cardiac surgeon – the first Inuk woman in the country to practise as
a cardiac surgeon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
hearing from people who are on a wait-list for cardiac services that they may
have to wait six to 12 months for a priority cardiac procedure – a procedure
that should be done in six weeks; this is simply not good enough.
I ask
the Premier: What are you doing to address the crisis in cardiac wait times?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We're
working with Eastern Health, who delivers this service, to ensure wait times are
minimized. We have streamlined the flow through investigations through the
cardiac cath lab and now, with the addition of new surgical resources, we are
starting to address the backlog.
Whilst
the Member opposite asked a question about mortality earlier on, what we do know
is over COVID we have, unlike other jurisdictions, seen no excess mortality this
year and last year with COVID compared to pre-COVID years, which I take as an
encouraging sign, although we will get the data the Member asked for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I look
forward to that data because that's not what we're hearing, unfortunately, for
these families.
We're
hearing that the wait-list for cardiac surgery could be approaching 200 people.
What is more alarming is that the majority of these people are assessed at high
priority and should be done within six weeks but, because of the backlog, will
likely not get surgery until six to 12 months.
Premier,
how is this acceptable?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Once
again, we have added new surgical resources. We have, as I say, Canada's first
Inuk cardiac surgeon who is proving to be a huge asset to the backlog the Member
opposite describes. In addition, we have a surgeon from Ottawa who comes out on
a periodic basis every quarter to provide extra skills.
We are
working our way through the list, Mr. Speaker. It did not get generated
overnight; it will not be fixed overnight. The priorities on that list are
reviewed on a daily basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I'm
sure the Premier knows only too well that specialized surgical staff are crucial
to heart operations. Some of these hard-to-recruit positions are facing critical
shortages that may create further delays in wait times for cardiac surgeries.
I ask
the Premier: What is government's plan to address the staff shortages,
specifically the technicians who run heart and lung machines that are in
critical short supply at Eastern Health?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
That is
indeed a very topical question. As of, I think, four weeks ago, the cardiology
program there is looking at using the perfusionist in a different way, in a way
that matches current best practices. By doing so, we reckon we can increase our
throughput using that new style of working by about 25 per cent. Again, that
will help support the new cardiac surgeons and the extra surgical staff. We're
on that one too, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It still
indicates to me that people are in dire need now for interventions for heart
surgery and it doesn't seem to be a plan that will adequately address that in
the immediate future.
Yesterday, the Premier said, we need to be bold, be imaginative and create the
system for the future of our province. Our Blue Book committed to develop a
cardiac centre of excellence to make our province a leader in cardiac care.
I ask
the Premier: Will you show leadership and commit to a cardiac centre of
excellence so we can improve cardiac care in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the question.
Certainly, for the hard-working women and men, the perfusionist, the nurses, the
cardiac surgeons, the cardiac cath lab, I know them all well. They all work
extremely hard. They are performing excellent care.
Can we
always be better? Certainly, we can be better. Of course, the Health Sciences
Centre, our cardiac program is a tertiary care centre for the rest of the
province, so we'll continue to invest in it to ensure that we're leaders across
the country, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all
agree that we have some of the best health professionals who give 110 per cent
every time, but we need a new creative, bold approach. The Premier is right, but
he needs to take the leadership and start that immediately. We gave an
alternative that is needed here.
Mr.
Speaker, I first wish to commend our front-line health care workers and the
department for its diligent work on vaccines and the rollout of the vaccine
passport. The vaccine passport has nudged a number of individuals in our
province to scheduling and receiving their vaccine, which is good news.
Our
office, as I am sure others of the government side, have been receiving a large
volume of correspondence from individuals that are not yet eligible for their
second dose, or, for a multitude of reasons, need to consult with a physician
first.
Due to
the lack of physician access in our province and the timelines associated, I ask
the Premier: Will he consider postponing the requirement of presenting the
vaccine passport until December 17, the same deadline which public servants are
required to be vaccinated?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
The Member opposite raises
some interesting points, Mr. Speaker. We are aware that there are some issues; I
addressed those in the COVID media update approximately an hour and a half ago,
nearly two hours ago.
Essentially, the issue of medical exemptions rests with the college, and we have
a dialogue opened with them about the criteria around it.
The
issue of wait times for cards and QR codes is being managed and we have put
extra resources to it, but the bottom line is your vaccine record will act
instead of, and is acceptable in place of, a QR code and they should have that
as they get vaccinated.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
fine to outline that, but the question is there are a number of people who took
the initiative to get their first vaccine, but they're going to be penalized now
while they're waiting for their second vaccine and not be able to be active in
society in the same manner, while we have a deadline for civil servants for
December 17.
We
cannot understand why you would not extend that to December 17 to give everyone
who already had their first vaccine an opportunity to be collectively healthy
and engaged in our society.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The
vaccine was widely available in this province from June, if not May, of this
year. There has been ample time to get that vaccine. We have encouraged, we have
educated, we have cajoled, we've gone back and we have encouraged.
The
facts of the case are, Mr. Speaker, this is sound public health and we may well
be amongst the middle of the pack. We're not the first to do this, we're not the
last to do this, but we have given ample warning and ample time and there are
vacant appointments at vaccination clinics across the province. There's no
excuse.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
Now that
the Minister of Finance has signalled a wage freeze for salary physicians'
budget, I want to ask the minister: How do you expect to recruit and retain
family physicians when they're the lowest paid in the country and you're going
to have a wage freeze for them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Premier said earlier, we certainly value and appreciate the hard work of the
many men and women in our health care that are health care professionals, and I
include doctors, nurses, you know, pharmacists and perfusionists in that group.
It's a pretty substantive amount of work they've been doing over the last number
of years, Mr. Speaker.
I also
want to say that a lot of the points that the Member opposite raises are part of
the discussions that we are having with the NLMA.
On
September 29, we laid before the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
proposals around the payment schedule, proposals around blended payment model,
around family practice renewal funding, Mr. Speaker; all of that.
We urge
the NLMA to come back to the table. They did pause discussions, Mr. Speaker, and
suspend negotiations. We ask them to come back.
SPEAKER:
The Member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
When the
current Minister of Health was the president of the NLMA, he lobbied hard for
Atlantic parity for physicians in this province.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Do you agree with Atlantic parity for our physicians?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I think I would go two routes for that questions. One is the pot of
money that is allocated to physician services is $500 million for 1,332
individuals. The quantum is not unreasonable. The way that money is allocated
within that pot is as much down to the NLMA's internal processes as it is as far
as government is concerned.
In
actual fact, if you look at the weighted Maritime average for salaried family
doctors, ours are above the weighted Maritime average.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicated that our family
physicians were the lowest paid in the country; two-thirds of the physicians in
our province are below the Atlantic average.
I want
to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health: In 2002, the Minister
of Health said the provincial government is far more interested in the
short-term balance sheet than a long-term future of health care.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Are you putting a dollar value on health care in this
province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would
go back to the Premier's earlier comments, we have committed to a 10-year accord
with Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth. That work is still in progress. That is
not short-termism. In actual fact, that is bold and it spans multiple electoral
cycles, Mr. Speaker.
This is
the time where we need to make the system work, redesign it, renovate it,
rebuild it so we get better health outcomes and not simply throw more money at
it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the Health Accord team have talked about a need for investment of
dollars in health care. I'm not hearing that from the minister, who previously
in the House said that health care should not be considered a cost, it should be
considered a service. I couldn't agree more.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Are you prepared to make the investments in health care
that are needed to ensure that 99,000 people in this province get access to a
family physician?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
These
are important discussions, as the Premier and the Minister of Health has said.
We want a long-term sustainable future for our health care. We want to make sure
that we're making the investments that we need to make. That's exactly what we
are doing, Mr. Speaker.
I can
say to the Member opposite that we have presented before the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association proposals on many of these very key issues,
including payment schedule, leave benefits, rural retention, bonuses and the
family practice renewal. All of those are before the NLMA.
We
encourage the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association – who suspended
negotiations, Mr. Speaker – to come back to the table so that we can bring
forward more discussions on these very important points.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
In the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality's mandate letter from the Premier, she
was directed to work on the issue of in vitro fertilization in this province, as
Newfoundland and Labrador is one of only two provinces that does not have access
to a local clinic. It's been eight months since your government promised
increased access during the election campaign.
I ask
the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: Why has there been no
action on this important issue?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you to the hon. Member for the question.
A very
important topic, one that we're certainly passionate about on this side of the
House. The Member is correct; it is certainly in my mandate letter to work with
my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services.
As I
said yesterday, I'm happy to say that we have committed to an entire review of
the system and, currently, there is a program under way to provide funding to
eligible recipients who will have to travel out of province to receive this very
valuable service.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, work under
way, under development – more rhetoric. It has been months since a funding
package for in vitro fertilization travel was promised. Families cannot afford
to play a waiting game.
I ask
the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: When can families who
rely on in vitro fertilization expect action from the government and not more
rhetoric?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker, and,
again, I thank the hon. Member.
I agree;
I think it's safe to say, as MHAs, we've probably all received calls from our
constituents about this. I know I did on the campaign trail. As a matter of
fact, just yesterday I've had several calls to my office, to the department of
Women and Gender Equality.
But
again, I want to reiterate our commitment. The Premier is very passionate about
this. I certainly am as a woman and as the minister for this very proud office.
Again,
it's important to get it right. Like I said, we care committed. Funding will be
available to those who are eligible to receive the funding who will be
travelling outside to get this service. Again, a full review has been committed
of the entire service. We will certainly do everything we can within our fiscal
reality.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, in September the
minister was blaming annual leave for delays in opening of new long-term care
facilities in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor. Yesterday, the minister's story
changed to blaming issues between the contractor and Transportation and
Infrastructure.
So I ask
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: When are the doors finally
going to open?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
pointing the fingers at anyone, but I'm disappointed on saying that the doors
are not opened to these facilities. But deficiencies have been identified with
the building, which is normal practice. I'm okay with saying that. We're dealing
with that now instead of when bodies are in that building. We're doing due
diligence. We have strong contracts with those companies, and that's a
contribution to the Public Procurement Act
that we have in place as well.
But I'll
be holding the contractor's feet to the fire to get those deficiencies dealt
with and get those people into those buildings, because that service is badly
needed in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the Premier's Green report recommended a moratorium on any new long-term care
facilities in the province. Is this delayed with the opening of new facilities
in Grand Falls-Windsor another initiative of the Premier's Green report?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
The assertion there, Speaker,
is that that is not the case, as the hon. Member mentions. But, as I said, in
terms of those facilities, we've been in conversations with Central Health in
terms of those two facilities. I am hoping that, in November, Central Health
will be given a transitional time frame which people won't be moving into the
facility but Central Health will have the opportunity to begin that transitional
period.
We're
hoping that's going to be in November. I'm looking forward to that and I'm sure
the Members representing Central are looking forward to that announcement.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
month, people of our province were made painfully aware of the heartbreaking
situation regarding neonatal medevac flights in our province. Eastern Health has
said that it's trying to recruit and train more teams to ensure that they have
round-the-clock coverage.
I ask
the minister: When was he made aware that the 24-hour neonatal medevac coverage
was not available in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Over the
last few years the neonatal transfer team, which is a highly skilled group,
averaged six calls a year. That is difficult to maintain the skills that are
required, and Eastern Health has endeavoured to try to work to supplement those.
The
unfortunate incident in question with the neonatal transfer was a night when
three neonatal transports were required within a 12-hour shift. Two were
completed; the third received support from the neonatologist virtually at the
Janeway to on-site medical practitioner. We are working to try and fill that
gap, but it's going to be very difficult.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I ask the minister: Is there
any process to inform the public when critical emergency services, like neonatal
medevac coverage, are not available? If not, will he direct health authorities
to issues advisories when situations like this occur?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, this is an
anomaly. It relates to one very specialized, almost quaternary-level service.
From our point of view, the emergency services in this province work very hard
and provide complete 24-7 cover.
This was
a transient, temporary issue and is not an institutionalized problem; however,
this particular area will be difficult to cover and Eastern Health has
contingency plans to do so. There will be coverage when needed. If you need
help, call the ambulance. If you are a physician who needs a patient
transferred, make the appropriate call, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you when you have a baby, many consider it a miracle; it's a joy. Of course
the first hours, the first days, are very critical, especially if the child has
issues. St. John's has only one children's hospital in our province and sick
neonatal children are some of the most vulnerable people in our province.
I ask
the minister: When will 24-hour medevac coverage be restored for sick children?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To my
knowledge, a team is available around the clock. If it's any different, I'll let
the Member opposite know.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
emergency room in Bonavista which services the town and local area, some
8,000-plus residents, are now without any doctors on call. This is the largest
service population in a province to not have a doctor on call for its emergency
room. To be blunt, staff and residents are scared.
I ask
the minister: When will the Bonavista emergency room have doctors on call to
support both patients and their fellow health care staff?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Recruitment and retention has been a real issue for this province, particularly
in rural areas, going back certainly before my arrival in this province – back
to the '50s and '60s. As a consequence, that is where, on Monday, we announced
some significant changes and some significant improvements.
In terms
of 24-7 emergency care, there are facilities that have challenges with providing
that continuity because of staffing shortages, currently. Absent recruitment and
retention that fills that immediately there are other alternatives, particularly
involving virtual care, which have been very successful.
We will
work and continue to work through Eastern Health to fill those gaps.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I only
had hoped that those strategies would have started much, much sooner and we
wouldn't find ourselves in the position we do.
The
Bonavista hospital emergency room was primarily staffed by doctors recruited
internationally, but with changes made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons
time has now run out. Government knew well in advance that the College of
Physicians were making these changes, but we are still in this unfortunate
situation.
I ask
the minister: What will be the permanent solution for the people of Bonavista?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken
with the outgoing registrar of the college on numerous occasions about the
issues she and the college have imposed on international medical graduates.
There is nothing I can do, directly. She has the authority and the college has
the authority, in statute, to determine who is licensed in this province and who
is not.
I can go
back on the other question about recruitment and retention. It is really
important that now we, collectively, as leaders in this Chamber, start to sell
this province as a good place to live and a good place to work. It's becoming a
challenge with some of the rhetoric from the other side, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
people of Labrador have to live knowing that they will not receive the same
level of health care as available on the Island. Medical travel is a fact of
life in Labrador. Local charities and crowd funding are used to cover failures
in Public Health. However, if residents accept local help, MTAP is made harder
to access. The form to apply for MTAP states: MTAP is a payer of last resort.
They will not provide assistance to travellers who have received private
donations or other forms of help.
I ask
the minister: Why does the Department of Health direct and scrutinize charitable
donations to a patient who is facing costs related to universal health care?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MTAP is
a universal program that is means tested, that is intended to defray costs of
travel. It was never designed, in fact or in policy, to be a compensation
scheme.
Having
said that, we have recognized Labrador has its particular challenges. On April 1
of this year, after discussion with current and previous Labrador Members, we
altered the transportation program to allow ease of access for people from
Labrador recognizing they have to fly, recognizing some might wish to drive and
avail of friends or family for accommodation and per diems. Those are
innovative, new approaches to make life a little easier for those people who
have to travel from the Big Land, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
“Courage, my friends 'tis not too late to build a better world.” This is from
the man who gave us universal health care, and we can do the same here: Create a
better world.
This
House voted last sitting, unanimously, in favour of striking a Committee on
basic income to review and make recommendations on developing a BI pilot program
and other poverty reduction initiatives. Initiatives researched by the Committee
could be instrumental in improving the lives and well-being of the residents of
this province.
Will the
Government House Leader honour the commitment and strike this Committee?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There
are many Committees of this House, whether it's a Social Services Committee or
other Committees and we strike Committees from time to time, Mr. Speaker. I've
had a conversation with the new Leader of the Third Party and we'll continue to
have those conversations as we go forward.
The
thing we have to realize is we always had a Committee structure in this House,
which always can be used. But I will have more conversations with the Member
opposite on the opportunities we may have there around Committees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, when a doctor tells
a patient in Labrador that it's urgent that they see a specialist or follow-up
care in St. John's, for example, the patient should not have to go through yet
another approval process.
Unfortunately, the current policy – this is post tweaks from April – in the
Medical Transportation Assistance Program is that that same patient may now have
to wait up to an additional 10 business days.
Minister, can we finally establish an efficient and compassionate means of
supporting those who require financial assistance to access our health care
system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In terms
of transportation assistance for anyone in the province, Labrador included,
those people who are on income support with challenged means have access to a
reimbursement or even a payment-in-advance program. We have on-call social
workers, 24-7, who can arrange flights, transportation on their own authority
without going any further.
If the
Member opposite has had a specific instance where someone requires 10 days for
that kind of referral, I need to know about it. I'd love to hear the details,
along with consent, obviously, from the individual concerned and we'll look into
it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Minister.
It was
last week and I'll send you the details.
Moving
from health care to highways, I recently heard the minister indicate that he was
moving away from the five-year roads plan to a multiple-year plan. While I'm
confused by the statement, I do remain committed to securing a solution to
fixing the deplorable state of highway 520 between North West River, Sheshatshiu
and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This highway has been identified as a priority and
is not improving with age or extensive use.
Minister, can you please inform this House of your plan to fix this important
highway?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
In terms
of the five-year roads plan, I did make reference to that in the last session of
the House and said I'll be doing away with the five-year roads plan and it will
become a multi-year roads plan. I made a commitment to the Member at the time
that I would be working with him to identify and deal with those issues that he
had, like Route 520, which we made an attempt to do some work there and he's
fully aware of that. I will continue to work with him to address those issues
that he asked about today in the multi-year plan.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville, time for a quick question, no preamble.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, I'd like to see if I can get an update, please, from the minister
responsible for dealing with the caribou poaching issue that has been going on
in Southern Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, quick response.
D. BRAGG:
I'm so excited, Mr. Speaker; I can't get the smile off my face.
The
caribou is a major concern, not only in Labrador but also in this province.
We're evaluating what's going on there. We're looking forward, Speaker, to
meeting with the community leaders in Quebec. As everyone would know, COVID this
year, just as we thought we were getting out of it, arranging meetings and
getting back into it, we ran into problems where we couldn't sit down with
face-to-face meetings.
We're
looking forward to when the new federal minister responsible for wildlife gets
sworn in, to meet with the new federal minister so we can talk about this,
because this needs to be a national effort to control this. This cannot just be
done provincially. We need the help of the federal members and our counterparts
in Quebec as well, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. STOODLEY:
In accordance with section 10 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, I hereby
table the annual report of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of
Newfoundland and Labrador on the operations carried out from January 1 to
December 31, 2020.
In
accordance with section 6 of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, I hereby
table the annual report for the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board on the
operations carried out from January 1 to December 31, 2020.
In
accordance with section 9 of the Chartered
Professional Accountants and Public Accountants Act, I hereby table the 2020 Annual Report and financial statements –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. STOODLEY:
– for the Chartered
Professional Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador for operations carried out
from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Any further tabling of
documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move a motion in accordance with Standing Order
11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, October 21, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Question for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows: Route 10 on the Southern Avalon forms
a large section of the Irish Loop. This is a significant piece of infrastructure
and is the main highway along the Irish Loop. This highway plays a major role in
residential and commercial growth of the region.
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 that immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10, Southern Shore
Highway, as large sections of brush along this highway is a significant safety
hazard for the high volume of travelling motorist who travel this highway daily.
This work is essential in the prevention of moose-vehicle accidents along Route
10.
Speaker,
I drive this route – I'm going to say – weekly and going up and down my district
from one end to the other is two and a half hours. Now, not all the district is
in bad shape in regard to brush cutting, but there are sections when you go from
outside of Tors Cove right to Trepassey, in the Town of Trepassey itself, that
certainly needs to be done. You have brush that's growing in the roads. If you
get in a certain section it's like the road is coming in on top of you with the
brush.
It's not
the only road in the province, I'm sure of that, but certainly this town, when I
look at Trepassey, you're driving in the town and the Department of
Transportation is responsible for the upkeep of the roads and the brush cutting.
The alders are growing out over the guardrails. You can't see the guardrails.
You can't see the signs. Coming through the park in the La Manche park area
there are sections there that the brush cutting needs to be done.
I'd love
to have an update from the minister to when some of this is going to be done and
when it's in his two-year plan.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We the
undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador bring to the
attention of the House of Assembly the following:
WHEREAS
according to the document The
Way Forward
on Climate Change the province is already experiencing the effects
of climate change.
Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and
Climate Change in 2016, but is not on track to meet the 2020 targets.
Financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact
municipalities due to the responsibilities set out in the
Municipalities Act, 1999.
THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
government to: one, declare a climate emergency; two, establish a task force on
decreasing the effects of the climate crisis while building community
resilience; and, third, consider climate in all policy and decision-making.
If
tabled in the House of Assembly, this petition is a document of the House of
Assembly and the name and address of every person who signs it will be available
to the public.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a little bit more than a minute to actually talk on this
petition. We know now that climate change is real and that human activities are
the main cause of climate change. I was just looking at an article in
Scientific American and the title kind
of caught my eye. It says “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and we're Going
to Say So.” And the subtitle was “It's time to use a term that more than 13,000
scientists agree is needed.” We are living in a climate emergency and we're
going to say so.
The
petitioners want to declare a climate emergency. So you have to wonder now, if
you look at the media and you look at government decisions and responses to
climate change, why are governments and nations so resistant to using the term
climate emergency? I think it has a lot to do with the actual definition of
emergency. An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action.
When somebody calls 911 because they can't breathe, that's an emergency. When
someone dials 911 because their house is on fire, that's an emergency.
Looking
at governments now, we need immediate action to start the process to stop and
reverse climate change. If we don't do that now and if we don't respond as if
it's an emergency and declare a climate emergency, by the time the fire truck
shows up, the house is going to be burnt down. By the time the ambulance shows
up, the person is actually going to have stopped breathing and be dead.
Right
now, we need to actually take action.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, thank you very much, Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition and I share her concern. Obviously, it's an
important topic, not just for us here in this House of Assembly but all of the
future generations, not just in this province or Canada but right across the
global community.
I know I
don't have much time left, and I know you're going to cut me off –
SPEAKER:
You've got 30 seconds. I'll give you 30 seconds.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We have
started and completed some of the 45 items in our Climate Change Action Plan.
I'll have more opportunities. I look forward to the Member bringing forward a
future petition so I can go through a little bit more of the detail so we can
have a conversation on this. My door is always open for the Members, as they
know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I call
upon the Member for Topsail - Paradise to introduce the resolution for today's
private Member's motion.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
As I
mentioned two days ago, this resolution is being seconded by the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island. So to move the following resolution:
WHEREAS
the Parfrey/Davis Health Accord has described the health care situation in
Newfoundland and Labrador today as a health crisis, and their assessment is
justified: when some 99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have a
family doctor; when emergency response personnel cannot respond to people in
urgent need because of inadequate resources; when front-line health care
professionals are overworked to the point of burnout; when health care
professionals are leaving this province because the government does not address
their concerns; and when the government has refused to enter into meaningful
negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, whose
contract expired more than four years ago, but is threatening to split the
association instead of addressing the doctors' core concerns, which are
fundamental to physician recruitment and retention.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to recognize
that there is a health care crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to
immediately address this crisis with the urgency the circumstances warrant.
Mr.
Speaker, I think this PMR is timely. In fact, I would say it's overdue, given
the current lack of action on some very, very key issues.
Now,
today I'm hoping, and I expect to hear some thoughtful and practical responses.
But I also expect to hear some very sad commentaries on what the residents of
our province are facing with regards to health care. I guarantee you – I would
bet – that's it not just this side of the House that are receiving those calls
and those emails. I'm not talking brief emails; I'm talking four and five pages
from doctors, from paramedics and from mothers and fathers talking about kids,
talking about their cancers, talking about their aliments and not able to get
proper care. Nobody in this House is immune to those calls.
I can
tell you since I took on this role as the shadow minister for Health – and we
call ourselves shadow ministers, as opposed to critics. Yes, it's our role to
criticize at times, but our main role is to hold government accountable. Each
and every one of us in this House of Assembly were elected by the people of
their districts to serve the people of their districts. I'm sure that's a role
we all take very seriously and, in that role, dealing with our health crisis is
a huge issue that we have to speak to.
So in my
role as the shadow minister for Health and Community Services, I've taken it
upon myself – and I suspect everyone has done so in their own roles – to reach
out and sit with many of the associations, the agencies and the stakeholders
that deal with health care in this province. It's only to sit down and talk; sit
down and tell us what's happening from your point of view; tell us what some of
your solutions are from your point of view. It's listening. You can hear the
words, but unless you truly listen, that's what you have to be doing, and I sit
down and listen.
I've met
with the Medical Association, I've met with the nurses, I've met with the nurse
practitioners, the paramedics and I'm meeting with a couple more groups along
the way later this week, including the Health Accord, I might say. I've met with
them many times, their town halls; I've attended those. But the common thread,
or one of the common threads because there are a couple, one of the common
threats throughout is the recognition that we have a health crisis, a health
care crisis in the province.
Anyone
you talk to when you're trying to solve a problem you first have to recognize
you have a problem and then you have to recognize the severity of that problem.
I feel like it's an intervention here, an intervention to try and get government
to realize the crisis situation in health care here, the extent of the problem
and to start acting upon it.
It is
great to make some announcements of what we're going to do – we're going to do,
we're going to do. You hear talk about short-term solutions, you hear talk about
medium-term solutions and we hear talk about long-term solutions. But a key word
in our resolution here is to “immediately address.”
The
Premier talked the other day – I think he used the words: we're ahead of the
curve. I don't know what curve he's talking about. I don't know what curve he is
talking about. We mentioned our health framework that we put out in 2015, how
many of the items in that framework are things that this current government are
starting to take on, which I'm glad they're doing that, because I'm not here for
rhetoric, I'm hear for action.
So it's
great to hear that, but if you're aware of that – the response back from the
Health Minister was, well, that came from a report that came out in 2011, which
makes me ever more upset. If you're aware of that, if you're aware of these
suggestions, and regardless to who put them out – the Premier talks about – I'll
give you the quote: “I ask everyone to have the courage and the imagination to
come up with solutions ….” That was yesterday, and he challenged everybody in
this House again yesterday.
These
solutions have been there since 2015 and before. Now we're talking about a
recruitment and retention plan, when in 2015, in our plan, we talked about a
recruitment and retention committee. Who cares where it came from – act.
We look
at this resolution: when some 99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not
have a family doctor – 20 per cent of our population do not have access to a
family doctor. That is huge. That needs to be addressed.
The
minister mentioned when talking to the paramedics: I can't knit a paramedic. I
can't knit a paramedic. Point taken, it takes 18 months to 24 months to train a
paramedic. You can announce all the seats you want for nursing, for doctors, for
Bachelor of Science: all good, but six years too late to deal with it now, to
deal with an immediate crisis now.
When
emergency response personnel cannot respond to people in urgent need because of
inadequate resources – we have heard from many groups, I've heard from the
paramedics, I've heard from nurses out in the Bonavista hospital telling me how
people are triaged in the parking lot. How people are taken in on gurneys, are
the hallway, being restrained, being medicated and being toileted in the
hallways. I've been told by nurses how individuals have passed away in the
hallways on those three-inch mattresses – that's their words. That's not mine.
I mean
what do you tell people? Even today in Question Period when I talked about
Labrador and the issues they face up there. Yes, unfortunate circumstances, and,
yes, it's an anomaly, but it's life and death. It's life and death for people.
Just
even something as simple as saying: We're going to have a system that will
notify people when there's a red alert or when there are no ambulances
available. To me, that's not a huge investment, if it's an investment at all,
but it's common sense. As my father would say: common sense if not so common.
When the
government has refused to enter into meaningful negotiations with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association – I'm not involved in the
negotiations there. There are teams in place for that. But when one party to
those negotiations has to pull away and do further consultation, because zero
has been put on the table, and, again, I'm not involved in the negotiations but
from what they've said, well, that's a concern. That's a concern to me.
When I
look at the primary health care framework – just as an example of what we put
forward back in 2015, it was a plan for 2015 to 2025, which is only four years
away now; yet, we are over six years behind. We talked about fostering increased
attachment to primary care teams, that's 2015. Does that sound familiar? It
should because that's what's being announced now, six years later.
We also
committed to exploring the social determinants of health. When the Health Accord
came out – and I applaud Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis, doing a
fantastic job –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
– but it was mentioned in this House like social determinants of health was
something brand new. We mentioned this back in 2015. So it's not. It's been
there. We talked about ongoing collaboration, which was a huge term tossed about
when we had a minority government here and I don't believe we saw anything near
collaboration.
We
talked about in 2015 in that framework – and look, I don't care who had put out
the framework back in '15. My point is it was out there in 2015. We cannot be
putting blinders on, saying it didn't exist. And as the Minister of Health said,
apparently, there was a report in 2011 with this.
We also
talked about implementing recruitment and retention initiatives. That's what we
talked about then, and here we are talking about it again. Oh, we're going to
start looking at that. It's going to take time. Recruitment takes time,
especially when you're battling against many, many others who are looking for
the same. It is across Canada, there's no doubt about it. So what do we do
differently? What are we doing differently to recruit doctors and keep the
doctors that are here, graduating from MUN, and to retain them?
I just
looked at a quote here, a piece of data here, because it's been misconstrued.
It's been said in this House by the minister how well we're doing on retaining
MUN grads. This is Canadian Institute for Health Information: Retention of MUN
med grads in Newfoundland and Labrador is the lowest of any province.
My Lord,
when you look at headlines, one: “Despite a doctor shortage, this recent MUN
grad won't yet practice family medicine in” Newfoundland and Labrador. “Shortage
of Physicians 'Multi-Factorial,' says Dean of MUN Medicine.”
Mr.
Speaker, 99,000 people in the province don't have a family doctor. That's a poll
that was done. Recruitment must be co-ordinated, Inkpen. That's a headline.
“Family Doctor Fee for Service Model No Longer Viable, says Past NLMA
President.” That's a headline.
“Welcome
to Newfoundland; good luck finding a doctor.” That's a headline. Nova Scotia's
Physician Recruitment Efforts to Further Challenges in NL, say NLMA.” That's a
headline. “The health minister says N.L. is 'blessed' with doctors. The medical
association begs to differ.” And I can on with the headlines.
I
guarantee you, this has been around for a while. I know we're not ignoring it,
but I'm hoping this Member's resolution will bring some good debate.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
look forward to participating in this debate this afternoon on the Member's
motion.
The
question is: Is there a health care crisis, as suggested by the Member opposite?
I know both the Premier and the Minister of Health addressed that in Question
Period earlier in the week. But in terms of this debate, do any of the clauses
in the Member's resolution, in terms of calling our health care system is in a
crisis, when you consider them either individually or collectively, do they
stand the test? I suggest that there's a high degree of hyperbole on the part of
the Member and the Opposition.
The
Member talked about holding the minister and the government accountable, and
that's what I'd like to do with respect to his resolution. Let's start with the
reference to the Parfrey and Davis Health Accord, which the Member suggests that
they describe the health care situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today as a
health crisis.
Well, in
fact, when you talk to Sister Elizabeth and Dr. Pat Parfrey, they are
participating in the Health Accord process to establish and ask us to imagine a
health care system to better deliver services to meet the needs of the people
across the province. They have a mandate to deliver a 10-year plan with short-,
medium- and long-term goals for our system that better meets the needs of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They would not be and would not engage in such
rhetoric. They are being proactive, they are being action-oriented, they are
involving all stakeholders and they are communicating well what they're doing.
In
addition, I think what is in the resolution is the antithesis of fomenting a
crisis in our health care system in terms of what the accord is intended to do.
They, like most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, recognize the need to address
the well-documented challenges facing our health care system to avoid the crisis
in the future.
Secondly, you refer that their assessment is justified when some so-called
99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have a family doctor. Have you
asked the question: What's the source of that number? Now, there's no doubt
there are many of us without a family doctor. We know what's happened in recent
periods, in the past year or two or three. We have increased retirements by
family physicians. There's a change in practice patterns by our new and younger
physicians, and there are a large number of people, tens of thousands, who have
historically not availed of a family doctor or family practice, mainly younger
men and women in good health. The actual gap is really less than 99,000, as
suggested by the Member opposite.
I would
refer you to some Statistics Canada data, which in says in 2019 – the report
only came out last year – that the percentage of Canadians without a health care
provider, at the Canadian average, was just under 17 per cent. In Newfoundland
it was just under 12 per cent, much lower than all western provinces.
There
has probably been some movement upwards over the past year or two in
Newfoundland's number, but nowhere at the number of 99,000, no matter what way
you do the math. If Newfoundland and Labrador has a crisis as suggested by the
Member opposite, then so does every other province in this country, and we're
not hearing that.
I also
want to refer to, within that number, 47.4 per cent of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians felt, one, that they did not need a family physician or a family
practitioner, but they usually had a place of care or they didn't try to find
one. We have to put the data on access to family physicians in context.
Something I've been aware of in my work over the years.
You also
need to look at the source of that number when a particular professional
organization is in current negotiations with the government and using whatever
leverage it can to maximize its position with the public and putting pressure on
the government.
I want
to go to the next point when you refer to: when emergency response personnel
cannot respond to people in urgent need because of inadequate resources. Now,
I'm not aware of any reported cases were ER personnel cannot respond. There may
be delays, but once they're documented, the department has responded to meet
those needs. The Minister of Health referred to that in his announcement last
week in responding to the situation on the Northeast Avalon, new resources were
provided once there was a documented case to do so. If there was a crisis, there
certainly doesn't prevail now.
I want
to refer to: when front-line health care professionals are said to be overworked
to the point of burnout. That is a concern of mine, if any of our health care
workforce could or would be burnt out through their work. Now, given the
responses required by COVID, we can readily accept some front-line staff, their
managers and others need to be assured that the necessary support services and
human resource policies are in place and that we provide better management of
our personnel so that we can achieve better health. That would not lead to a
crisis in our system.
These
resources are on their way – as, again, Dr. Haggie mentioned – with a plan to
make sure we mitigate further human resource challenges. That's what it is. It's
a current challenge faced by many employers across the province, and not solely
the health care.
I want
to refer to the clause when it says: when health care professionals are leaving
this province because the government does not address their concerns. There has
always been a movement of health care professionals within the province and
across provinces, especially doctors between provinces. There is no acceleration
in this labour movement in or out. There is no crisis when you think of that
particular reality.
I also
then want to refer to the clause: when the government has refused to enter into
meaningful negotiations with the NLMA, whose contract expired four years ago,
but is threatening to split the association instead of addressing the doctors'
core concerns, which are fundamental to physician recruitment and retention.
Members of the House think of it this way: Negotiations are in their first phase
with government already tabling its proposals. Yet, the NLMA has yet to respond.
They have chosen – for the short term anyway – to withdraw from those
negotiations, which speaks more to their negotiation strategy than suggesting a
crisis, just ask any labour negotiator in this province.
So,
Speaker, I conclude by rejecting the original motion and propose and amendment
as follow:
I move,
seconded by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, that the private Member's
resolution be amended by: deleting the words “Parfrey/Davis”; deleting the words
“and their assessment is justified”; replacing the words “when some” with the
words “according to the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association”; next,
deleting the bullet “when emergency response personnel cannot respond to people
in urgent need because of inadequate resources”; next, by adding the word “and”
immediately after the word “burnout”; deleting the bullet “when healthcare
professionals are leaving this province because the government does not address
their concerns, and”; –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. ABBOTT:
– and replacing the words
“when the government has refused to enter into meaningful negotiations with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, whose contract expired more than
four years ago, but is threatening to split the Association instead of
addressing the doctors' core concerns,” –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. ABBOTT:
– “which are fundamental to
physician recruitment and retention” with “Government is engaged in negotiations
with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association;” replacing the words
“that there is a healthcare crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador” with “some
individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador are experiencing a health crisis”; and
deleting the word “crisis” the last time it appears.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. ABBOTT:
The amended resolution would
read as follows:
WHEREAS
Health Accord NL has described the health care situation in Newfoundland and
Labrador today as a “health crisis,” and according to the NLMA, 99,000
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have a family doctor; front-line health
care professionals are overworked to the point of burnout; and government is
engaged in negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to recognize
that some individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador are experiencing a health
care crisis and to immediately address this with the urgency the circumstances
warrant.
Speaker,
thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
This House will stand adjourned and review the proposed amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Upon
review of the amendment, I do rule that the amendment is in order.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you.
I'm very
heartened to hear the ruling because I think it speaks to, as I said, the
hyperbole that was in the original motion that really is exaggerating and, I
will say in many respects, scaring the population.
I think
it works for all of us and certainly for the people we serve if we are seen
working together to solve some critical challenges in our health care system. We
need to work with the Medical Association. We have to work with the nurses and
the nurses association and every other profession. But, more importantly, we
need to make sure that the people we serve and the system that is there,
designed to provide health care, is supported by this House, by the government,
by the health authorities, by the health professionals and by the men and women,
literally, working on the front lines.
So the
Health Accord, under Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis, is designed to do
just that; it's to make sure we can address the needs of the health care system,
dealing with the social determinants of health, dealing with the acute care
system, dealing with the delivery of primary health care services in a cohesive
and comprehensive and planned way.
I spent
many years with the Health Council of Canada looking at health care systems
across the world and across Canada. One of the things that I was able to bring
to those discussions was that each province is unique in the challenges it
faces, but, at the same time, we share many of those same challenges right
across the country, whether it's the recruitment and retention of family
physicians, the recruitment and retention of nurses and in a lot of dialogue
between the provinces and the federal government, we're trying to solve those at
a national level.
The
recent federal election brought forward some of those issues and, certainly,
we're expecting with the new federal government, under the Trudeau
administration, that we will see more dollars coming to provinces to help them
deliver the services that we need and to address some of those challenges.
We have,
as the Minister of Health and Community Services has mentioned in the
government's first mandate, looked at mental health and addictions, which I was
quite familiar with in my previous role with the department, and we have come a
long way in addressing the challenges there before it hit a crisis. We are going
to do the same when it comes to the acute care system, but, more importantly,
when it comes to community care, family practice and addressing the social
determinants of health, which underlie the need for many of our health care
services.
In my
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and with the Housing
Corporation we are going to be well positioned to address and deliver on those
issues once the final plan is presented to government by Sister Elizabeth and
Dr. Pat Parfrey.
I am
encouraged by the direction that this government is taking, the leadership by
the Premier and the Minister of Health and Community Services so that the word
crisis gets removed from the vocabulary of this House and in this province.
I look
forward to the rest of the debate and I pass it back, Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm a
little disturbed by the comments from the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi in the way he describes the facts that we have a shortage of family
physicians in this province. Starting off by suggesting that the NLMA is being
less than truthful with the numbers that they're putting out there, with the
numbers of people in this province that do not have family physicians. I don't
think that adds anything to this debate. If he wants to talk about rhetoric then
that is pure and simply rhetoric.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
The other comment he made
about the Health Accord – again, I'm a long ways away so maybe I didn't hear it
correctly, but he seemed to imply that the Health Accord didn't call it a health
crisis. Well, if you want to enter it into evidence or whatever you want to do
here in the House, one of the slides from the recent deck that they presented
certainly talked about and quoted on the top: health crisis. So that is right
from the slide deck of the Health Accord team. If that's the case, they
certainly acknowledged that we are in a health crisis. So let's get that out of
the way.
Let's
talk for a minute about what makes up a crisis or how it's defined. A crisis is
sometimes defined as a difficult or dangerous situation that needs serious
attention. Let's focus on those two words: difficult and dangerous.
I would
argue that many people in this province, when it comes to health care, are in a
difficult and dangerous situation, whether you want to put a number on it, but I
will tell you it's not just in districts on this side of the House. Maybe it's
not in the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, but there are thousands of
people in this province that do not have a family physician.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
They are in a difficult
situation. There are thousands of people in this province who have been waiting
months and sometimes years for a procedure to be done. They are in a difficult
and, in some cases, dangerous situation. So again, let's focus on them. Tell the
people in my district, tell the person who is number 450 on the cardiac lab
wait-list in outpatients that they're not in a difficult situation. Tell that to
the individual in my district who's waited over a year to have cardiac surgery
that he's not in a difficult or dangerous situation. In his mind, he's in very
much a dangerous situation.
We
should never undermine what people's thoughts are and how they feel about their
own individual health situations, because we are here to help the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and that's what our message should be. That's what our
focus should be. That's why it's very, very important that we talk about where
to next.
The
Health Accord is going to lay out a long-term vision for this province,
including looking at the social determinants of health. One of those, as the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi fully knows, is social housing. In my
district alone, there are over 100 people on the wait-list for Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing. I can only imagine how many across this province are waiting
for social housing. If we're going to improve people's social determinants of
health, we're going to have to invest and more investment in that.
Let's
talk about the water. We've talked about water a lot in the last couple of days.
Again, the minister talked about the improvements they're made; good stuff. But
there are still lots more to be done – lots more to be done. In my district
again, communities with no water, and I know of other districts around the
province with no water. Again, a social determinant of health: access to good
water.
There
are lots of things that need to be done. But if I talk about the family
physician situation, we've again talked about the need for community teams.
We've talked about that. We promote that concept, but part of those community
teams involve physicians. If our family physicians are not competitive with
those in Atlantic Canada, then we have a challenge in maintaining and recruiting
more. I would argue that.
So I
want to ensure that when the negotiations – you're ongoing and dealing with the
NLMA, don't pigeonhole yourself into a dollar value. Talk about the services
that are needed in each region, in each district. Talk about how you need to
fill those services. And then at the end of the day when you get that figured
out, fund it. But don't start off by talking about what you're not going to do.
That is
a fundamental, principal error that this government is making by talking to the
NLMA and saying what they're not going to do. That is not the way to negotiate;
that is not the way to help the crisis that we currently have in Newfoundland
and Labrador; or it is not the way to solve a difficult or dangerous situation.
So
again, those are things. Now, we also know that nurse practitioners are a very
important part of a community team. In a lot of cases right now if we didn't
have nurse practitioners in our province taking the place of GPs, especially in
rural parts of the province, we'd be even in a worse bind. But those nurse
practitioners, we've come a long way; I'll acknowledge that. But there needs to
be more incentives.
How come
a nurse practitioner – and I'll give an example of a lady in my district who
called me up and said: I have to pay for health care now. And I said: What do
you mean? She said: I now have to pay $40 to see my nurse practitioner. I said:
Why? Because I no longer have a family physician. I can't get an appointment to
see a nurse practitioner in the clinic. Another lady called to say that the Bay
St. George Medical Clinic operated by Western Health, that she called looking
for an appointment with a nurse practitioner and they said: Unless you were a
previous client of a doctor in that clinic, we're not going to take you.
So how
do we fix that? We know that it's going to take time. But there are shorter term
solutions. Maybe if the health authorities have a surplus in their salaried
physician budgets because they no longer have salaried physicians and the
shortage of them, maybe the nurse practitioners can bill the health authority
instead of billing the patient.
I know
we don't want to go down the road of a fee-for-service model because that's one
of the things – and I don't disagree with government – that they're trying to
change. The NLMA want to change that model and how it's funded. The Minister of
Finance has talked about all those initiatives. But again, boxing themselves in
by saying that we're going to put a dollar value on it, before you even talk
about the service needs. Again, that's somewhere we need to look at and we need
to know how we're going to get there.
We've
talked a lot about the college and the challenges with the new assessment
program that's put in place. In some other provinces, they're actually
supporting foreign-trained doctors to prepare for work in exchange for a return
in service. We talked about a pilot project here. We need more than a pilot
project. We need a project and a program that's going to continue to provide
coverage for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
No
matter what category of health care you want to talk about, we have people in
difficult or dangerous situations. When a person with a heart attack in medevac
cannot get flown out, is that not a dangerous situation? When a person requiring
dialysis in Goose Bay is told, sorry, we're closed, is that not a dangerous
situation? There are so many more examples.
When it
comes to the whole Medical Transportation Assistance Program, and my colleague
from Lab West talked about it again today, there have been improvements made.
Let's acknowledge that. But there's so much more to be done, and I think it's
high time that we stop putting a price tag on people's health and say: Once and
for all, whether you live five miles or 500 miles from the tertiary care centre,
if you need to get there, you won't have to worry about how you're going to get
there or how much it's going to cost you; we got your back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Because we have your back on
this side and we will have your back.
That's
the kind of initiatives that can be undertaken immediately. Immediately, those
changes can be made. So the whole bureaucracy of applying for approvals, filling
out travel claims and all of that can be eliminated.
Let me
tell you another story, while I have a few minutes, about a gentleman in Goose
Bay when I was there. They didn't have any urologists in St. John's, a shortage
of urologists in St. John's, so they allowed people to travel to Nova Scotia. So
as a health authority we looked after everything and all their needs: We booked
their flights, we booked their hotels, we gave them their money for their meals
and they had the best services ever.
He came
in one day looking to go back to Halifax again to see the urologists, but by
this time they had recruited urologists in St. John's. All I could tell him was:
Sorry, I can't help you; you have to go through MTAP.
Now,
we're talking about services and delivery of services across the province. Those
of us that live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador know we're not going to have
everything in our communities, but we understand that if we have to travel, then
government should be there to help us and to make sure we're able to get to
those appointments on time. That's what health care should be about.
When it
comes to a primary health care model, it's about the full team. So let's not
leave anybody behind when it comes to the full team. Let's make sure that, at
the end of the day, we have the right people in the right place, and that
includes family physicians. It includes allowing nurse practitioners to maybe
find a different way to practice independently so people in this province don't
have to call up and pay $40 to see a nurse practitioner because they no longer
have access to a family physician.
I know
exactly what they're talking about, Speaker, because my family has no family
physician, and there are lots of us scattered throughout all of this province. I
would argue on that side of the House, in those districts that you represent,
there are lots of people that have no family physicians. Whether it's 90,000 or
higher or lower, that's not the point. The point is there are a significant
number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without a family doctor.
A crisis
is defined as a difficult or dangerous situation that needs serious attention.
We cannot wait for the Health Accord team to finish their work. The minister
talks about short-term solutions; we need more of them. We need simpler things
that can be done immediately that can impact people's lives and open up
services.
I have
to ask the question: When did a telephone become virtual health care?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I'd like to know when a telephone became virtual health care.
We
understood during the midst of COVID that there was a need – and it has a place.
But it should not be the thing that replaces the actual visitation to actually
see a person in person. Whatever needs to happen to make that go back and fix in
a way that makes it so that family physicians have a way of practicing that can
work that allows people to be seen in person and spend the quality time with the
people that need it, that have chronic disease because, right now, that's not
happening.
I think
there are solutions and I hope that government is going to sit down with the
NLMA and find them. But, again, there are lots of people in difficult or
dangerous situations in our province and if that's not a crisis then I don't
know what is.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
graduated from the General Hospital School of Nursing in 1990. I worked
primarily as a neonatal nurse but I also have experience in psychiatry,
palliative and long-term care nursing. Often I get asked why I left the
profession and would I go back. I left because I was injured and I would love to
go back. There was never a day or night that I did not want to be a nurse. That,
Speaker, is true for most nurses who work in this career.
The
motto for nursing is: Every day is one more accomplishment. A bachelor's degree
is now the minimum requirement for entering registered nurses to work in
Newfoundland and Labrador and master's degrees are becoming more common.
There
are over 5,300 registered nurses and nurse practitioners in the province in all
parts of the health care system. These nurses and nurse practitioners are
represented by the Registered Nurses' Union. The RN Union of Newfoundland and
Labrador is a strong, unified voice for our nurses. Today, nurse practitioners
make up 3.5 per cent of the practicing registrants in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In
'20-'21 licensure year, 222 College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and
Labrador received a practicing nurse practitioner licence. This represents a
42.3 per cent increase in the number of nurse practitioners compared to five
years ago.
Speaker,
our government recognizes the vital role that nurses play in Newfoundland and
Labrador health care. A lot has changed since I graduated in 1990; in fact, a
lot has changed over the last 10 years. That is why after assuming the role of
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Dr. Furey appointed Health Accord NL.
Health
Accord NL was created by our government to look at our current health care
models and to reimagine the health care system to best deliver services so that
we can better serve people in communities across this geographically challenged
province. We are a province of many small rural communities with an aging
population. The work of Health Accord NL includes consideration of how
physicians and other health care professionals work together to meet the
province's health care needs both in hospital and community settings.
We
recognize that front-line health care workers need support in staffing so they
are not working 24-hour shifts. We understand that we must ensure that health
care professionals can work to their full scope of practice. Therefore, we must
implement short- and medium-term initiatives to improve access to health care
services in Newfoundland and Labrador, immediately, to build a foundation for
Health Accord NL's recommendations. We must work to find ways to reduce health
system costs while improving services to meet the health needs of individuals,
families and communities.
Speaker,
we must continue expanding the number of primary health care teams throughout
the province, improving the scope of practice for health care providers,
increasing the number of nurse practitioners and licensed practical nurses to
provide care in our communities and filling vacant positions in the regional
health authorities.
On
October 18, our government committed to strengthening the health care system.
Our government knows and appreciates the dedication and hard work of our health
professionals in this province. Doctors, nurses, paramedics, pharmacists,
personal care attendants, social workers, psychologists and all of our health
professionals rise to the occasion each and every day. Their care and compassion
throughout the pandemic has been exceptional.
People
in Newfoundland and Labrador, like people everywhere, want to lead healthy,
productive lives knowing that access to appropriate quality health care is
available to them when needed. We know we have challenges in our health care
system. Some have been prevalent for some time and require significant change.
Some are related to our aging population and how we live and still others have
arisen from the pandemic.
We also
know that none of us can tackle these challenges on our own. Rather, we need a
collaborative approach to finding solutions that benefit us all.
Recruitment and retention of physicians and other health care professionals are
ongoing issues for many jurisdictions, not only in Canada but around the world.
The situation here in Newfoundland and Labrador is no different. We know
team-based care is best for patients. Students are being trained to work in
interdisciplinary teams. We know working in terms provides greater job
satisfaction. We will ensure that health professionals who wish to work in teams
have opportunities to do so.
The
Minister of Health and Community Services recently announced our commitment for
a request for proposals for development of a health human resource plan. As our
population ages and our demographics change, we need to provide the right care
for residents in the right place at the right time by the most appropriate
provider.
To
assist in meeting this goal, we will be issuing a request for proposals for the
development of a health human resource plan for the province. We will work with
the Workforce Readiness Working Group of Health Accord NL and will be creating a
stakeholder committee to provide input on the request for proposals. The
successful proponent will be required to conduct extensive engagement with
stakeholders.
Speaker,
we recognize and have confirmed that we understand the need for more RNs, LPNs
and PCAs in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government has made a commitment to
further increase the number of graduates from the licensed practical nursing
programs by 40 per cent and the personal care attendant programs by 20 per cent.
In 2020,
we increased seats in the licensed practical nursing program by approximately 90
per cent. We increased seats in the personal care attendant program by
approximately 70 per cent. We commit to further increasing the number of
graduates from our licensed practical nursing programs by 40 per cent and
personal care programs by 20 per cent.
Our
government is committed to increase the Bachelor of Science in nursing program
seats by 25 per cent; offering of the Bachelor of Science in nursing program in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor, beginning in September
if 2022 through the implementation of a rural program with remote teaching.
Speaker,
we have all experienced two very difficult years, and our government employees
within the Department of Health and Community Services have been working around
the clock to keep us safe. We all know that COVID-19 is real. We all know that
it has taken immense resources to address it. Yet our government is working and
has been working to address health care concerns in Newfoundland and Labrador.
My son,
who is an individual with autism spectrum disorder and epilepsy, lost his family
doctor in December 2020. And, yes, for me as his mother, this is a crisis. But
we have found ways to address his needs and we will continue to work with the
resources available to us such as 811 HealthLine, when needed, until we can get
a new family doctor for him.
The
provincial government's focus remains the continuous improvement of the health
care system in conjunction with stakeholders that supports our health profession
workforce and better health outcomes for the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Speaker,
as a past minister of WorkplaceNL, I had the honour of working with individuals
who were front-line workers: RCMP officers, RNC officers, paramedics and
firefighters who work day in and day out on the front lines, protecting and
helping the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. On December 4, 2018, I
announced amendments to the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Act to include presumptive post-traumatic
stress disorder coverage for all workers, which was effective July 1, 2019.
Our
government understands the value of mental health supports. We are committed to
mental health supports for paramedics. Our government understands the unique
mental health challenges often experienced by our province's first responders
and is committed to providing programs and services to help address these
issues.
We
currently have a suite of evidence-based e-mental health programs and services
available free of charge across the province. DoorWays walk-in counselling
clinics are available in over 60 locations province wide. The provincial Mental
Health Crisis Line and the Provincial CHANNAL Warm Line are both available seven
days a week.
However,
aside from the current resources available, we have heard what paramedics have
said about the need for customized mental health supports. To that end, we are
working with Eastern Health, NAPE and other partners to find ways to tailor more
dedicated supports to meet the needs of front-line paramedics and other
front-line responders 24-7. This includes such measures as an exploration of
increased or modified services through the CHANNAL Warm Line.
Speaker,
we have made significant investments in recent years to establish training
programs for paramedics in this province. We recognize the recruitment and
retention challenges that exist in paramedicine. Minister Haggie will be working
with Minister Osborne, as the minister responsible for the College of the North
Atlantic, to facilitate increasing the supply of primary care paramedic seats
and/or offerings at the college. This will benefit both public and private
ambulance operators in the province.
There's
also been recognition of the value to health care delivery in urban and rural
areas of the province through the expanded use of advanced care paramedics'
level of care. A review has been conducted of the required allocation and
training needs to perform such functions as assistance in emergency departments,
non-urgent care in communities and a plan has been prepared. There are currently
63 annual training seats for primary care paramedics in the province; over four
training sites. There are 24 advanced care paramedics in training at the College
of the North Atlantic here in St. John's, and an extra 12 seats will be added.
Speaker,
access and availability of physicians in our province are of utmost importance.
All medical personnel, those who care for each and every one of us at our most
vulnerable time when we are ill or injured, are of utmost importance. Our
government recognize the need for improvements within the health care system
province wide, our government established the Health Accord and our government
is committed to the well-being and health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
Two
years, I guess, we've been here now and I've never been so confused in all my
life and I don't know what the difference is or the disconnect –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
If you got something to say,
say it out loud.
Either
government doesn't get a call from their constituents, they don't hear from
doctors, they don't hear from nurses, they don't hear from front-line health
care workers or they don't listen to them. Because I can tell you, everyone on
this side of the House are inundated with phone calls about doctor shortages,
about nurses overworked, about red alerts, about ambulances not even being
available – forget about red alerts; just not being there.
But we
don't have a crisis. That's hyperbole according to the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi. A crisis is a time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger.
Now, you think about the people in our lives, our family members, our friends,
our constituents, our co-workers and you tell me that that definition doesn't
apply to what's happening in our health care system today. We are in a crisis.
Make no mistake about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
More amusing, the Premier
came in here yesterday and said he only ran because of the state of health care.
Today, it's not a crisis. He ran because of the state of the health care; today,
it's not broken. Makes no sense.
The
Minister of Health said this morning he knew about doctor shortages here in the
'50s and '60s, we were failing to recruit long before he got here. He got
elected in 2015 and he bragged – he boasted today about the initiatives that he
put in on October 18 – two days ago.
Where
have you been for the last six years?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
If anyone thinks that this is
new, they're wrong. So we can talk about numbers coming from Stats Canada or
whatever, but I'll put something in perspective here. These numbers may not be
100 per cent accurate but they're as close to accurate as we're going to get.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
Well, listen, we just say it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
According to the NLMA there
are 99,000 people without a doctor but none –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
– in the District of
Carbonear, not one.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
It's great to see that health
care and people without doctors is funny. It's great to see that.
Newfoundland has 521,000 people, close to 100,000 without a family doctor, 19.2
per cent. Not the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, he quotes stuff in
2019. It's 2021. I lost seven doctors in my riding in the last 10 months, not
one replaced. So tell me how accurate your numbers are, Sir? Not good.
Nova
Scotia: 971,000 people; 70,000 without a doctor, 7.2 per cent. They have a
crisis folks. We don't. Nineteen per cent versus 7 per cent; crisis versus no
crisis. You tell me who's right and who's wrong.
On a
daily basis I hear from doctors and nurses. We've talked to the NLMA. I've
talked to the Newfoundland and Labrador health boards, several times, four times
to be exact. Every time they've used the word crisis. It's in their slide deck.
It's in the words they use. It's in their approach with their public
consultations. It's in everything they say, and they say they don't have a fix
for the immediate crisis, they're looking for long-term solutions – long-term
solutions not short term.
This PMR
is about short-term solutions and guess what? They're not here. They're not
here. When somebody broaches this subject, and it's been broached in this House
several times over the last three or four years – two years for sure – about the
shortage of doctors, physicians, specialists, nurses being overworked, all that
stuff, the answer has always been the same. Not the case, our medical system is
robust. We're positioned. We can look after this. We got things under control.
Guess what? The only person who is saying that is our Minister of Health – the
only one.
The NLMA
says we're in a crisis. The nurses say we're in a crisis. The patients and the
constituents that call me, that can't get a doctor, say we are in a crisis. The
paramedics say we are in a crisis; not only the ones that work for government
but the ones that work for private enterprise: they are in a crisis. They're
overworked. They're underpaid. They're understaffed. They don't have a life. And
guess what? You guys say we're not in a crisis. As a matter of fact, you put
forward an amendment to say we're not in a crisis.
We are
in a crisis, make no mistake about it. If you don't believe me, go out on the
front steps and see the young girl the sits there every day with the mental
health issues and have a conversation with her. If you don't believe her, go to
the Waterford; go to the hospital in Clarenville. Better yet, go to Bonavista
tomorrow and maybe get involved in an accident and go to the virtual ER that
happened by accident. It didn't happen on purpose.
If this
government was so big on virtual ERs, they should be boasting about that.
Instead, it was hidden away. We got that from nurses that are afraid to go to
work because there is not a doctor on call. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
If it is
such a good initiative, you'd be bragging about it. You wouldn't be trying to
hide it away. So guess what? Bonavista is in a crisis. Clarenville is in a
crisis. Gander is in a crisis. You're not hearing that, are you? Not a peep.
Grand Falls-Windsor: crisis. Bishop Falls: crisis. We're in a crisis folks and
do you know what? Until we admit that and we address it, it is never, ever, ever
going to go away.
We can
talk about recruiting doctors, and I was happy to hear the Member for Gander say
yesterday that we had to recruit the family unit. I've said for years, that's
one of the things that we're missing out on. It's a big deal, but we're about
six years too late – six years too late. October 18, 2021, look at what I just
announced. Shameful.
What do
we do in the interim? We sit back and we look for ways to avoid accepting what
we've done wrong. I'm not saying that this happened in the last six years. It's
happened over a long period of time. But guess what? You guys promised to fix
it.
In six
years you ask yourself this question: Are we better off right now than we were
in 2015? I can tell you the answer. The answer is no. What's the one
commonality? There is one commonality: we've had the same Minister of Health for
all of those years and not one thing has changed. There has been lots of
opportunity.
When we
talk about crisis, you try and get blood work done. When we talk about crisis,
you try and get an x-ray done. Everything is based on appointments and time out.
You tell a person that has cancer that they can't go get a blood test done
today. Do you think that doesn't create a larger crisis in their lives? Well,
you're wrong, 100 per cent wrong.
At every
turn I take, no matter where I am in this province, the number one thing I hear
about is our health care situation. I hear about it from my friends that are
doctors, I hear about it from my friends that are nurses and I hear about it
from my friends that are sick. But I also hear about it from my constituents and
I hear about it from complete strangers who look at me and say: Hey, aren't you
the MHA? Yeah. How do I get a family doctor? How do I get a family doctor? If
you don't think it's global, I tell you what now, my mom is up in Labrador. My
dad passed away a year and a half ago and she wants to retire and move back to
Newfoundland. Do you know why she's not coming? She can't get a doctor.
I've got
people who've immigrated to this country, two, three years ago in my district,
they cannot get a doctor, yet we're going to try and encourage people to come
here. We're telling them come on, we're going to grow this economy. How are we
going to grow an economy if we can't treat our ill? If we can't do the simplest
thing that we promised people, how do we make things better?
Well, I
can give you the first step, acknowledge that there's a problem, and that has
not happened. Not for a second. It's like a turtle going back into its shell
every time someone says it. We're right, you're wrong, there's nothing wrong,
everything is good.
Anyhow,
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on. I'm going to defer to the Member for
St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, I asked, as a condition of supporting the sugar tax, if the other
side would support the re-establishment of the all-party committee on guaranteed
basic income. I was told and I quote: To be blunt, we don't need your support.
So you'll forgive me if I don't trust your rhetoric about how we need now to
work together to somehow co-operate and need to be seen to be working together.
I don't buy it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
It's rhetoric.
This
government has become more interested in deflection. Why else would you
introduce last minute, stop-gap measures on the day the House of Assembly
opened, introduced last minute, stop-gap measures? Why would you be so
interested in changing the PMR of the Opposition so that it basically minimizes
the crisis? It affects negotiations.
I can
tell you right now, listening to the rhetoric about negotiations, I was the head
of an association, of a union, and I can tell you when a union walks out of
negotiations it's not because it's a friendly pause, it's because they're
getting nowhere. They've realized that, they're getting nowhere.
So the
whole notion about negotiations and consultation has a very different meaning
for government than it does for unions. I can tell you that right now.
This
affects real people. I here have an email from a specialist who takes time to
double as a family doctor – takes time as a specialist, a rheumatologist,
because her patient doesn't have a family doctor. Crisis? Because there's more
than one. A doctor who met with me when I was first elected, who was facing
retirement and, rather than retire, tried to find a doctor to help her maintain
the practice so that she could carry on, and could not find a doctor.
Eventually, she was going to retire; advertised and could not get a doctor.
Every patient there was without a family doctor at the end of that. She's gone;
where are they?
I know
in the months leading up to this sitting of this House of Assembly, I can tell
you one thing, I had more calls from people looking for doctors. I turned to the
Department of Health; directed to clinics that weren't even set up yet. So tell
me that it's not a crisis. To minimize it, I think, is an injustice to those who
are struggling both in the profession and those who are looking for it.
Yesterday, two questions I could not get a commitment from the Minister of
Health or the Premier to follow the recommendations, to implement the
recommendations of the Health Accord NL. That does not inspire confidence. It
tells me that they're already preparing to walk away because it's going to cost
too much to make the changes.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I just had to say that. I can tell you right now, if you're
look for co-operation then you need to start coming up with something
meaningful. Stopgap, last-minute Liberal measures are not going to cut it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
great to hear the passion and enthusiasm from the other side. One of the reasons
for the amendment was, in actual fact, the original motion was factually
inaccurate and, as such, was not supportable. The issue about who refused to
enter into meaningful negotiations, as the Member who just spoke recently
pointed out, it was the NLMA who broke off negotiations. Our door remains always
open.
To deal
with the substance of the PMR, the spirit of it, we agree with. There is an
issue, we have acknowledged it, we have recognized it and the issue about action
and being timely is really crucial. It's unfortunate, so far, that the
Opposition haven't recognized the activity that has gone on. We met with
stakeholders, we have listened to them, we have responded to the paramedics and
we have an excellent working relationship with the RNU. There was a plan
outlined on Monday which does address short-term measures to deal with the
issues around access to primary care.
There is
a recruitment and retention piece. One of the challenges around recruitment and
retention that it's actually getting worse with the rhetoric and media coverage.
We're actually creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, Speaker. We have a crisis in
those families who cannot access health care.
I'm not
minimizing that at all. We have a situation, however, across the entire country
where health care systems have been challenged beyond any predictable point by
COVID. We see the similar sorts of debates in the legislature in Quebec
yesterday. We have seen debates like this in New Brunswick. In PEI, yesterday
the Opposition spent a lot of time discussing access to primary care for
Islanders there. We are not alone.
But if
we are ever to recruit our own graduates, keep our own talent, we have to change
the channel. This House needs to lead by example. If we are not prepared to come
up with solutions and this side of the House is – and we've seen some of them.
It is the beginning, not the end. If we are not collectively prepared to come up
with solutions, our efforts are going to be diminished by perpetually having to
counter misinformation in the public around the true state of the health care
system and the opportunities to change it.
Recognizing the problem is part of it. We've done that. Acknowledging that there
are solutions and committing to work towards them in a collaborative way is the
only thing that will get us out of this. I've not heard that from the Members
opposite. I have heard a lot of passion, a lot of heat, but no solution and no
desire to come to the table.
A stark
contrast, Speaker, a stark contrast –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order!
J. HAGGIE:
– to the approach of the
unions. We have seen immense co-operation from the RNU, for which I thank them
and welcome them regularly to the table. We have had significant collaboration,
input and co-operation from NAPE and from the others of the health care
workforce who represent workers.
We have
actually, despite the rhetoric, a good working relationship with the Medical
Association. Staff and myself meet with representatives on a regular basis
outside of negotiations. The challenge that we have is that we are in –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. HAGGIE:
– collective bargaining – for
want of a better term – with the Medical Association, and they have a taken a
breather to consult their membership on our offer. And I'm really delighted they
have done that.
I am
really keen for them to get back to the table, we have a lot of common ground
for agreement and I think there is a great prospect for movement. Again, I would
encourage all Members of this House to recognize the problem but equally
recognize that inflaming the situation with inappropriate comments and factually
incorrect motions is not going to make the situation any better. Even if they
don't come up with any solutions, the least that they can do is stop making it
worse.
With
that, Speaker, I'm gong to close my comments.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise will now close debate.
P. DINN:
Speaker, I don't know where
to start here. I really don't. I think it's shocking. It's appalling. It's
outrageous. It is insulting. Not to us, but to the people we represent. When we
bring forward a private Member's resolution to have some discussion here and the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi hijacks it and goes off with an
amendment that takes valuable time away from us having a good discussion on the
merits of the PMR.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
P. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, again it is
appalling that the Members across the way are chatting and laughing at a more
serious situation here. That is appalling and that is shocking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
You said you're going to
listen; try it – try it. Because you're not listening to the members of society
in this province who are in a crisis situation. Life and death for a lot of
these people. I'm not here about rhetoric. I'm not here listening to the Health
Minister talk about us not giving solutions. If he listened to my first talk on
this, if you go back to Hansard, I
offered solutions; I told you where to find solutions. So don't come here
talking about rhetoric. We're here to do a job; we're here to work for the
people of the province and make it a healthier place. We're not here to play
politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
You know when we get into
looking at this and saying take Parfrey and Davis out of it. Whether that makes
a difference or not, I don't know, not an issue.
When the
Member for St. John's East - Quid Vidi says the so-called 99,000 people without
a family doctor. That's offensive to the NLMA.
Then
you're talking about meaningful negotiations. That's what you do, you start
tossing barbs out. That's meaningful negotiations? That's going to help the
negotiations?
To be
splitting hairs and haul up another stat that says 13 per cent or 12 per cent.
It's still 60,000 to 70,000 people without a family doctor. It doesn't matter
how you roll it, it's all deflection.
I said
in my opening piece about getting the blinders off. They're after putting on a
blindfold. They're just not seeing it – not seeing it. It's ridiculous.
I'll go
down through what they have here: deleting a bullet. Now, listen to this,
deleting a bullet: when emergency response personnel cannot respond to people in
urgent need because of inadequate resources. Delete it. They want that deleted.
Everybody in this House is aware of people who are in urgent need of help. I
spoke to the Medical Association, the paramedics, the nurses, the nurse
practitioners, everyone; everyone talks to inadequate resources. We hear it in
this House.
We've
talked about neonatal; lack of resources is the issue.
We've
talked about the ambulances, and they've already acknowledged they're going to
bring in three new ambulances. Is that spare ones or is it because of lack of
resources?
Airlift
out of Labrador, I don't know how to speak to that, but it's a lack of
resources. I would go so far as to say lack of respect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
Red alerts: How many times have we heard red alerts? Is that because we have an
abundance of resources? No. That's because all the resources are taken up. Now,
the Minister of Health might call it an anomaly or just, you know, an
unfortunate incident. It's still a lack of resources.
Delete:
when health care professionals are leaving this province because government does
not address their concerns. They want that deleted. I already went through some
headlines in the paper; young doctors leaving this province because they can't
get their concerns addressed. They must be liars; they can't be telling the
truth. Why would they leave the province if everything is hunky dory here?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
Why would they? Young professionals leaving the province because they don't have
the supports here. And they want that deleted?
Is that
a cover up? Is it deflection? Is it total ignorance to the facts? Are you not
listening?
Then we
look at, my Lord, getting rid of the word crisis. Replacing the words: that
there is a health care crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador. They want that
replaced with: some – some individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador are
experiencing a health care crisis. Some is defined as a small amount or number
of people.
Think
about that, now, a small amount or number of people. Now, if I take the 12 per
cent or 13 per cent the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi used, that's
still about 70,000 people, so small number.
We've
heard questions today in the House on cardiac patients. We heard comments on
ambulances. I know everybody on this side of the House is getting the calls. I'm
getting the calls. They are very sad calls. I don't disagree that the health
care system in this province needs work and it's a hard portfolio to carry. I
don't disagree with any of that. But when you look at six years, eight years,
whatever, it's time to act.
I
applaud the Member for Placentia – let me get it right here. I got you on the
list here somewhere.
B. PETTEN:
Placentia - St. Mary's
P. DINN:
Placentia - St. Mary's.
I thank
you for your service as a nurse and all front-line workers. I don't think any of
us have anything bad to say but the utmost respect for all our front-line
workers and what they're doing, not an issue.
The
Member gave a good overview of what's being done by government or what's there
or what's been announced in the last few days. She mentioned the word commitment
quite a bit. She mentioned the word recognize quite a bit. She also agreed that
action – I believe her words were: we need to act immediately. Right now, we
have commitments. There are things that we should have been doing yesterday,
should have been doing six years ago. There are things that we need to act on
immediately.
As I
said in my preamble, this is not about taking credit for anything. That's what I
said, you can go back and check Hansard.
I'm not here for brownie points. I really believe we need to work
collaboratively together. When I speak to the issues that we presented in our
framework, I don't care who put it forward, but act on it. Take it and run with
it, I don't care.
To say
we haven't offered solutions. Now, where's the rhetoric? To say we haven't
offered solutions. They're there. To say my door is open come on over.
I take
my role as shadow critic for Health very seriously. I've gone out and met with
many groups. I don't put words in their mouth, I sit down with them and I say:
Tell me, what's your view of health care? Okay, tell me, what are some of the
solutions? I'm not necessarily agreeing with them all. But if I'm going to do my
job, I'm going to find out what everyone thinks and move forward. I've gotten a
lot of good information over the last little while from all these groups.
We seem
to be struggling on crisis. I believe we're in a crisis, I do. That's me. I
think recognizing that and recognizing the degree of that is what helps you come
up with solutions and how immediate those solutions are.
I've
learned in this House we all get passionate. As the Member for Gander said and
acknowledged the passion that we get on speaking on this – and I'm sure every
one of us are very passionate. I understand we get caught up in the game of the
House, but I think this is too serious an issue.
I can't
support the amendments here. I just think it's a plain, outright insult to the
issues that we're trying to address here. Debating over whether some individuals
or whether it's a crisis or whose figures we used. I just think unless
government is hiding some exit survey on data in terms of who's leaving the
province – I haven't seen it, and why they're leaving, and doctors.
The
Minister of Health mentioned a little while back that there's no mechanism for
attaching patients to family doctors. So we don't know who's attached and who
isn't. That's not a criticism. I would take that as a fact. So we need to do
work; we need to get a grip on what the true issue is.
I do
understand from the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi it's part of
negotiations. I'm sure the NLMA – everyone puts out their least offer and you
work towards it. I'm very familiar with negotiations. But I think if we go into
everything confrontational, if we go into everything with rhetoric, if we go
into everything not letting someone have one up on you, we're not going to solve
anything. We're going to drag issues on longer than they should. Even if we say
some individuals are experiencing a health crisis, that's a health crisis,
regardless, for that individual. The calls I get, and I know our Members get,
it's a crisis. It's terrible, some of the stories we hear.
I really
hope to put this – well, it's not my PMR; it's our PMR. I support it. We support
it. I was hoping it would generate little bit more discussion in terms of
solutions and a way forward and being more collaborative. However, we took this
detour. And that's all perfectly above board here. That's all above board. I can
appreciate everyone with their approach that they take to it.
I think,
going forward, if anything now that's come out of this is you have to realize
that we are, and I'm sure everyone in this House are –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's now
5 p.m. (Inaudible.)
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment to the resolution?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
SPEAKER:
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amended motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amended resolution?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Steve Crocker, Lisa Dempster,
John Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah
Stoodley, Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott,
Brian Warr, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry
Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles.
SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Paul Dinn, Lela Evans, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Craig Pardy, Helen Conway
Ottenheimer, Lloyd Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Loyola O'Driscoll, Jeff
Dwyer, James Dinn, Jordan Brown, Eddie Joyce, Perry Trimper.
Speaker,
the ayes: 20; the nays: 17.
SPEAKER:
I declare the amended
resolution carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
It be Wednesday, in
accordance with Standing Order 9(3), this House do now adjourn until tomorrow,
1:30 p.m. in the afternoon.