May 3, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 47
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
First,
I'd like to begin by welcoming Juanita Stone, the former mayor of Red Bay, and
her spouse, Bob, here today. Welcome to the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Cape St. Francis, Bay Verte
- Green Bay, Ferryland, Lake Melville and Harbour Main.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
For the
past 10 years, on March 20, the United Nations has published the World Happiness
Report, a global ranking happiness study based upon social, economic and
environmental statistics. From that report, the International Day of Happiness
was established with the goal to make people realize the importance of happiness
in their lives.
Speaker,
today I'm happy to report that Action for Happiness in Killick Coast has begun
in my district, thanks to advocates Crystal Murphy and Cassie Manning-Dyke. Both
ladies, along with other like-minded individuals, are helping to promote a
movement of people to create a happier world together among volunteer groups,
organizations and communities.
Thanks
to their ongoing efforts, all towns in my district have signed proclamations
recognizing International Day of Happiness in an effort to raise awareness, help
encourage people to become more involved and to promote the benefits of
well-being and good mental health. That is something each one of us should pay
close attention to.
Speaker,
I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking Crystal Murphy and Cassie
Manning-Dyke for their contribution in bringing Action for Happiness to my
district and I hope this movement will travel across our beautiful province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize the late Guy J. Bailey, a well-respected businessman who passed away
on Wednesday, April 27, 2022, at the age of 89. Guy J. will be remembered as a
great community builder, having owned and operated numerous businesses for
decades.
Guy J.
Bailey Ltd. has been in operation for over 55 years, employing 100 local workers
year-round. Each of his children have his entrepreneurial and community-minded
spirit. There have been numerous businesses over the years, including Dorset
Manor, Baie Verte Gifts and Flowers, Baie Verte Recycling, Sears Outlet,
Bailey's Bus Service, a garage and, more recently, Shoreline Aggregates Inc.
In his
retirement years, Guy J. purchased and renovated a vacant church building in
Grand Falls-Windsor into a retirement home. Later, as a resident in the Deer
Lake and Baie Verte retirement homes, Guy J. was known for always sharing a
smile, leading singalongs, playing the piano and sharing the Scripture.
Guy J.
Bailey has given his family an incredible legacy of love, support and a most
generous giving heart.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me in offering condolences to the Bailey family and the
entire Baie Verte peninsula.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
rise in this hon. House to recognize the Southern Shore Senior Breakers who were
awarded the Herder trophy as the 2022 Avalon East Senior Hockey champs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Just two weeks ago, the
Breakers swept the Clarenville Caribous four games to none in the Herder
Memorial finals to take the prestigious Herder Memorial Trophy back to the
Southern Shore.
The team
is mainly comprised of players who are graduates from both the Southern Shore
Breakers and the Goulds Minor Hockey Association, but there are members of the
team that hail from all over the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I was honoured to be a part of a winning Herder team with the Southern
Shore Breakers and I'm glad to see Herder number six finally make its way back
up the shore. Winning the Herder is not only an accomplishment for the players
on the ice, but it also reflects on the irreplaceable hard work put in by the
volunteers and fans. Without the contributions of volunteers, senior hockey on
the Southern Shore would not be where it is today.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been told that the planning has already started to bring Herder
number seven back to the Southern Shore.
Go
Breakers Go!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
As the
world responds to the escalating war in Ukraine, our province can be proud of
the contribution by Lieutenant Colonel Melanie Lake from Churchill Falls.
After
growing up in Labrador, Lieutenant Colonel Lake graduated with an engineering
degree from the Royal Military College, then an impressive career that includes:
leadership roles with all three Canadian Combat Engineer Regiments; instructor
at the Forces Leadership and Recruit School; senior officer with the Chief of
Defence Staff; and three deployments to Afghanistan as part of Operation ATHENA.
As
Commander of the Regiment in Petawawa, Lieutenant Colonel Lake assumed command
of Operation UNIFIER in March 2021. This bilateral mission between Ukraine and
Canada provides military training for thousands of security forces and their
National Guard. President Zelenskyy recently highlighted the UNIFIER training
mission and thanked Canada for improving the defence capability of his besieged
nation.
Lieutenant Colonel Lake volunteers tirelessly with Mriya Aid to provide
non-lethal survival equipment for Ukrainian defenders and in the resettlement of
Afghans who worked with her and other Canadian soldiers to our country.
I would
ask this Legislature to thank Lieutenant Colonel Melanie Lake, a proud graduate
of Eric G. Lambert School for her leadership in support of those dealing with
extreme adversity, both on and off the battlefield.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The Town
of Brigus in the District of Harbour Main can now add another unique distinction
to its colourful history.
Randy Spracklin and his father, Scott Spracklin, have brought national attention
and have captured a broad interest in authentic home construction and
restoration with their popular television series entitled
Rock Solid Builds, which airs on the
HGTV Canada Network.
Randy described the show as being 100 per cent authentic and unscripted. The
second season just finished airing on April 7 and Randy and his team are hoping
for a third. HGTV were looking for an East Coast show and when they reached out,
Randy emailed back and, as they say, the rest is history.
The
creative talents of this father and son team, along with their eight crew
members and co-workers, is a demonstration of ingenuity, skill, professionalism
and humour – all of which is on full display for the world to see.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Randy Spracklin and
his team on their success and for showcasing our province's beauty and the
communities in which we live.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Speaker, in just a few short days, municipalities
across the province will meet for the first ever Municipal Awareness Week from
May 9-13.
In
previous years, we have celebrated Municipal Awareness Day. This year, in
partnership with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the Professional
Municipal Administrators of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are designating a full
week to celebrate and acknowledge the importance of local governance to
residents all across the province.
Municipal government is responsible for providing critical services that enhance
the quality of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Dedicated mayors,
councillors, staff and volunteers are essential for the effective governance of
municipalities. Their work, supported by the collaboration and partnership and
involvement of residents is essential for active, sustainable and vibrant
communities.
Providing stability and predictability for municipalities is so important. With
this in mind, Budget 2022 provides
more than $141 million to maintain key programs such as the Special Assistance
Grants, the Community Enhancement Employment Program, the Canada
Community-Building Fund and not less than $22 million per year for Municipal
Operating Grants for at least the next three years.
Speaker, cities and towns are busy organizing various activities for Municipal
Awareness Week and I encourage my hon. colleagues and all residents to take some
time next week to recognize the contribution of all those working in municipal
sectors and to participate in activities that municipal councils will be hosting
to mark this inaugural event.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
And
I would like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Speaker, my colleagues in the Official Opposition join the minister in celebrating the first ever Municipal Awareness
Week. As a former mayor myself of my beautiful hometown of Pouch Cove, I
understand first-hand the important role that individuals play at the municipal
level, whether as a mayor, councillor, staff member, firefighter or community
volunteer.
Speaker,
these are the individuals who are often the first point of contact for an issue
with any level of government or to organize a sports team, a recreation activity
in their community, or to answer the call in the time of trouble. We all owe a
debt of gratitude to these individuals who offer themselves to their
communities, often for decades, with little or no remuneration.
This is
why, under the regionalization plan which was announced by the minister, we need
some fundamental questions answered: How much is it going to cost; what will be
the new services that will be provided; what will the model look like? These are
recurring questions that I have heard from residents all over the province that
need to be answered as we look upon the importance of municipalities.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
We take
this opportunity to thank those who serve in local governance, all our elected
officials and employees. While municipalities are called upon to provide so many
basic services, they often lack the funding and resources to do so. Therefore,
we are calling on government to enter into more cost-sharing initiatives with
municipalities and explore new ways for them to raise the much-needed funds
themselves.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thirty-four community organizations and health care providers have signed a
letter calling on the Liberal government to increase access to rapid tests. In
particular, for seniors, vulnerable people, and low-wage workers.
I ask
the Premier: Will this government listen to these organizations or ignore them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We have
a rapid test kit distribution program, which is done under the guidance of
Public Health. We get a small but steady supply from the federal government, and
those are allocated to areas where Public Health feels they will do the most
good: daycares, educational establishments, personal care homes, congregate
living settings and the like. We keep a small reserve against the next wave and
we use what we get, Mr. Speaker. This is all done on the advice of Public
Health.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
For
those who can't afford to buy the rapid tests, this is a way to release their
anxiety and to address their particular health needs.
Speaker,
for seniors, vulnerable people and low-wage workers, access to rapid tests is
essential. Wide access to rapid tests, like in other provinces, can help people
determine their level of risk and help them keep themselves and their community
safe.
I ask
the Premier: Will this government invest in making the tools more readily
available?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
minister suggested, we are in constant conversation with Public Health, Dr.
Fitzgerald and her team as to how to best use these tests. I think it has been
proven that how we've used this test to date has gotten us to a good point in
this pandemic, Mr. Speaker.
Other
jurisdictions have offered them broadly and they've had to roll back, Mr.
Speaker. So some of the points made by the Member opposite aren't accurate
today. They tried to provide them broadly. They couldn't provide them broadly
and they recognized that it didn't actually achieve the goal that they set out
to do. We are constantly re-evaluating how we provide those tests to the public,
whether it's through the education system or beyond and we will continue to do
so in consultation with Dr. Fitzgerald and her team, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We are
hearing from thousands or Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly those
vulnerable in low incomes, and I know the other Members in this House must be
hearing it too, where they would benefit from access to rapid testing, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier removed COVID-19 restrictions but has not provided the tools needed by
seniors and vulnerable people to navigate this new normal. In other provinces,
if a senior wants to visit family, they can take a rapid test for some sense of
assurance. There is no such option here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the Premier: Why are seniors and vulnerable populations being forced to pay out
of pocket for what they can receive for free elsewhere in Canada?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
rapid test policy approach is determined by Public Health. We also have what is
one of the more liberal PCR and rapid PCR testing programs. So if a person is
concerned about their COVID status or exposure, they can follow that flow chart.
If they need a PCR, rapid or otherwise, it will be provided and it will be free
of charge. If they do not need one, Mr. Speaker, they do not need one.
The
rapid test kits that are available, are available where they will do the most
use for the most people and we keep a small supply against the next wave, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
think the most vulnerable would even accept a Liberal test if they could get
one, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Taxi operators are struggling
with rising costs of fuel and high costs of insurance. They are asking for
support but so far the government is not taking action.
I ask
the Premier: What are you doing to support taxi operators so they will be ready
to welcome visitors during Come Home Year?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank for you that question.
As I
said in the House before, we are happy to meet with the taxis, and we did. The
minister and I spent half an hour with several of the members of the taxi
community and we talked with them about solutions, about how to better their
employment opportunities for their drivers, how to streamline it within the
department of motor vehicle registration and how to make it more affordable for
their drivers to get access to the employment opportunities that they provide.
I'm
happy to say it was a positive meeting, we both took away action items and the
minister has agreed to further those action items, Mr. Speaker. It was a
positive meeting with a good outcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I hope
we move this in a timely fashion, because the Come Home Year is coming here and
it's very important to us promoting our tourism here and the expats want to come
home. But more importantly it's to the thousands of people who work in the taxi
industry and what that means to our economy. That's more important at this point
right now.
Speaker,
taxi operators are treated differently than anyone else and have only one option
for insurance. This means higher costs for companies, which trickles down to
higher costs for seniors and people who rely on taxis for trips to grocery
stores or to medical appointments. It's one more way the cost of living
continues to increase in our province for those who can't afford it, or can
afford it the least.
I ask
the Premier: When will you act to support the taxi industry and those who rely
on it, particularly around the cost of insurance?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said in my previous answer we've worked with the taxi community to ensure that
we can help, using government tools to make it more affordable for them and the
taxis that are on the road. We appreciate the service they provide; we
appreciate their contribution to the economy; we appreciate their contribution
to Come Home Year and their importance in that.
That's
why we had the meeting with them, when they requested it, and we are actioning
several items that came out of that, Mr. Speaker, which will ultimately make it
more affordable for them and the drivers on the road. It was the ideas they
suggested, not the ones that we brought to the table. We're happy to act on
them, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Just
recently the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association spoke to the huge
backlog in surgeries in this province, approaching 7,000 in St. John's alone.
The Medical Association has called on government to set a target date for
bringing this backlog down to pre-pandemic level.
I ask
the minister: Will he agree to establish a target date that can give some
assurance to patients that there is hope of timely surgery?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
From
personal experience, waiting for surgery can be a worrisome time and we are
certainly keen to do anything and everything that's reasonable to help remediate
this. This is a situation that affects all of Canada; there are 35,000 people in
Regina alone on a surgical wait-list at the moment.
We are
in the process of setting up a meeting between my department and the Medical
Association to share that information so we can get everybody on the same page.
We need to work with the clinicians, with the physicians and Eastern Health to
prioritize those patients, to come up with a plan, to put the resources in place
and to get this off the ground. We're committed to do that, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Official Opposition has called for updates on surgical wait times on multiple
occasions. The minister today is downplaying that severity. He talks about other
provinces. We're concerned about this province. I was elected by the people of
this province to look after the people in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
The minister has written the
NLMA agreeing to meet on this problem, and it's a long-standing issue.
I ask
the minister: Why does it fall on the physicians to update on this surgery
backlog, rather than his own department?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly I
can appreciate and empathize, as the minister has, with people who are on
wait-lists. Certainly, I can feel that frustration as a former surgeon myself,
having to tell patients that their surgeries are delayed.
That
said, we already have a meeting scheduled with the NLMA this week to further
discuss this particular topic, Mr. Speaker. As we've done in the past, we're
willing to work collaboratively with the NLMA. This is not an adversarial
relationship. We all want what's best. We all want to eliminate the barriers for
patients to get the care that they require, whether that's surgical or
nonsurgical services, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
encouraging to hear that they're going to meet. I mean, this just didn't happen
overnight. This should have been happening long ago, meeting to deal with this.
The
backlog of surgeries had a real impact on people both physically and mentally.
The NLMA has called for an online dashboard to report the number of backlog
surgeries in our province and asked for it to be updated monthly.
Will the
minister commit to this request?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Certainly, sharing of data is key in this exercise. In actual fact, prior to
COVID, I had a very initial meeting with the NLMA around the numbers and the
data. I think it's important that we all get on the same page. Our different
sources of data may have some gaps and overlap.
In terms
of how this is reported, the NLMA may have a view on how they would like that
done and we would certainly not want to put anything up there that would cause
them challenges, beyond what they face already.
As the
Premier says, this is a collaborative approach, we've met with them, as we did
with the College of Family Practitioners earlier this week, and everybody is on
the same page. We need to work together to fix this and we're prepared to do
that.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I have a
quote from last year from the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality
regarding pay equity legislation. It's something that we certainly are committed
to do.
I'm
going to keep this question a simple yes or no: Will the Minister Responsible
for Women and Gender Equality table pay equity legislation in this sitting of
the House of Assembly?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to say this is the first time I've ever seen women's issues raised at
prominently as they have been for this sitting. I am happy to see that and to
thank the hon. Member, of course.
As we
know, pay equity has certainly been the topic of conversation throughout this
sitting. I'm happy to say work continues. It's across government. The Department
of Justice is involved. Treasury Board is involved and, of course, Women and
Gender Equality and the labour division. So it's something that is ongoing.
I also
want to remind the hon. Member that simple pay equity legislation is not a
silver bullet that is going to change or solve overnight the gender wage gap.
That is the unfortunate. I think everybody is missing the definition. I
encourage everybody to read up on the definitions of pay equity and the gender
wage gap.
What is
important is that we are doing concrete things to get women into the workforce
and to negotiate –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, the minister
seems to defer authority to other departments. So let's see who has the
authority.
I ask
the Minister Responsible for Labour: Will you table pay equity legislation in
this sitting of the House of Assembly, yes or no?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change, and Responsible for Labour.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the hon. Member for the question.
As my
previous colleague had said, it is a discussion that we are always having with
respect to departments. It's multidepartmental. It's an issue that is facing
many jurisdictions across this country and across this globe. We're going to
continue to work together to try to find solutions to better improve the aspects
for pay equity right across this province and, hopefully, get to a place where
it's equitable across all parts of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, again, empty
words about ongoing discussions.
I ask
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board: Will you table pay
equity legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly, yes or no?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
This is
a very important topic. It is an important topic for women and I do believe for
men as well. I will say, Speaker, that the Job Evaluation System that has been
long adopted within government ensures a level and equal playing field across
all of government. So the Job Evaluation System has been well established within
government for, I would say, at least decades. I think that is very important to
ensure that we have equity and equality across employment throughout the civil
services.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So, Speaker, still no
commitment to table pay equity legislation it appears.
Speaker,
I've also been hearing from employees of Eastern Health, for example, who work
alongside males with the same roles and responsibilities, and one women in
particular feels she's paid less because she's a woman. I've also heard from an
executive-level employee of a government Crown corporation who feels she also is
financially discriminated against because of her gender.
I ask
the minister: Why are you ignoring concerns of these women?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
will read this into the record, of course, for the hon. Member: Newfoundland and
Labrador has reactive pay equity legislation in place and it's via the
Labour Standards Act and the Human
Rights Act. The Human Rights Act is complaints-based legislation that prohibits
discrimination in employment, including pay rates and gender.
So there
certainly are recourses that can be taken here in this province. Again, as my
hon. colleague said, there is no discrimination for wages in the public service.
I will
say, the onus is on everyone: private sector, public sector, across Newfoundland
and Labrador and the country, for that matter, to do what we can to help close
the gender wage gap. Because the gender wage gap is what the Member's referring
to, it's not pay equity. Pay equity is not the silver bullet and will not make
the gender wage gap close overnight. We all know that, we see that here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario and across the world.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time is
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
important that the people out there watching this on our TV channel realize
that's why it's called Question Period, because you just don't get any answers.
Speaker,
right now, people in this province are struggling with the high cost of living.
I simply
ask the minister: Why does she refuse to listen to her own constituents and to
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are asking for a home heat rebate
program?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
certainly want to always have a respectful workplace in this environment.
I will
say this is a very serious and difficult situation for the people of the
province, indeed provincially, globally and, nationally, a difficult situation.
We all know what's happening around the world, and coming out of a pandemic has
exasperated the situation. That's why we put $142 million in the budget to
assist people.
The
Member continues to refer to the home heat rebate program that was rolled into
the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit, which both have been increased
by 10 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the minister talks
about a program that was rolled in when the price of home heat fuel was about
70-something cents a litre. It's three times that right now. Home heating fuel,
gasoline prices, rising food prices, they're all hurting people of the province.
The five-point plan or the cost-of-living plan that was introduced pre-budget,
that's not working, that's not making it work. The budget, it's not hitting its
targets.
So,
again, I ask the minister: How high must fuel prices go or home heating prices
go before the minister will intercede?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I will
say that $142 million has been contributed back to the people of the province,
and that is significant. Would we like to do more? Of course we would like to do
more; of course we would like to do more.
I've
heard the Member opposite refer to Alberta, for example. We're doing every bit
as much as Alberta is doing when they eliminated their provincial gasoline tax –
this is equivalent to the provincial gasoline tax.
Will we
continue to see what more we can do? It really depends on the revenues of
government, Speaker. As you know, in this budget, we have no revenue increases,
no fee increases, no tax increases, Speaker, all that. And we still have a
$351-million deficit and a $17-billion debt.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I'm amazed that the
minister can stand up and say there are no tax increases, when they are about to
implement a sugar tax and we just had an increase in the carbon tax. Again, the
minister loves to give excuses as to why she can't take any action. A lot of
times she blames Ottawa.
I ask
the minister: Have you talked to your federal counterpart about making changes
to the carbon tax, or making changes to the HST so we're not paying tax on tax?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
certainly will say again, a respectful workplace environment is required in this
House of Assembly.
I will
say that, yes, I have spoken with the ministers across the country, all the
Finance ministers across the country. I've spoken with the federal Finance
minister as well and deputy prime minister about these very important issues. Of
course, everyone is concerned across the country on cost of living and the cost
of fuel. Everyone in the country is concerned about that. I'd say everyone in
the world, if you listen to the news coming out of the United States, Speaker.
But I
will say that, yes, at the Council of the Federation table, the premiers across
the country did petition the federal government on the carbon tax. It is a
federal tax to address climate change and they declined to move on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
we're into the month of May and few, if any, provincial road tenders are out.
The minister allowed the last five-year road program to expire and promised a
new plan last fall.
When are
we going to see it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Over the next few days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
He almost eliminated the rest
of my questions, but I'm going to keep going, because he promised this several
weeks ago, it was imminent and contractors are still waiting, Mr. Speaker. I
think this bears repeating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, I've not seen so few
tenders out in the first week of May. Contractors are anxiously trying to plan
their construction season. We're into May. While people on their crews are
facing no income and employment insurance benefits are running out.
Again,
how does the minister expect small businesses and families to survive when he
can't get the tenders out to do the work?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A very
important question, but there are tenders that have already gone out the door.
We've consulted very closely with the NLCA, which is important communication.
I've talked to contractors as well. At this moment, everybody seems to be
pleased. When we roll out the roads plan, I'm sure people will be getting to
work. There will be jobs in this province.
I say to
the hon. Member, if you're going to ask me a question you need to listen because
it's important. Jobs will be created when the standards come out –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
– over the next coming weeks.
We look forward to the work that's going to be done on our roads in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He must
be talking to the roads people up in Ontario, not the crowd around here, not the
Newfoundland crowd we're talking to. They're pretty upset. Actually, they're
reaching out to us. I'm not sure who he's talking to but they are talking to the
right people. We can bring it up here in the House of Assembly and bring it up
in the right venue.
Speaker,
the minister has about an extra $10 million this year and there's no shortage of
need. Just ask the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, Terra Nova, Indian
Meal Line and Route 60.
Again,
companies are ready; workers are ready. Why are you not, Minister?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
I make no apologies for doing
due diligence. The Member opposite knows the challenges and so does some of his
caucus Members, because I've had a lot of conversations over there with their
districts.
We have
a challenge in Baie Verte, yes, we do. He didn't mention Route 360, which is my
district as well. There's a challenge down there. There are challenges in many
areas of the province. We have work that's required, but the need far exceeds
what we have in terms of –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
So he stands in eagerness of
hearing an answer but when he gets the answer that he don't want to hear, he
doesn't listen to it.
We look
forward to the roads plan. There will be roadwork done throughout the province,
but we're doing due diligence because we want to be responsible with taxpayers'
dollars.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I remind the minister that
conversations and research isn't action. Action is needed on a lot of roads
throughout the entire province, with the exception of the three previous
ministers.
Speaker,
the Minister of Health boasts about collaborative care. I have an individual who
lives in Charlottetown in my district. His family physician was in Clarenville.
Every specialist he's ever seen has been under Eastern Health. This individual
has lost his family physician. He reached out to Eastern Health for a
collaborative care clinic and he was told he could not access a collaborative
care clinic based on where he lived.
How does
this make sense?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you for the question,
Speaker.
Patient
Connect NL is the registration portal. It's currently active for Eastern Health,
and that is currently a geographically defined area. Patient Connect NL for
Central and Western will be up and running within the next six to eight weeks.
At that point, the gentleman can seek registration through there.
In terms
of interim measures, 811 is available. There are nurse practitioners available
for virtual consults. There are hubs in Gander, there are hubs in Grand
Falls-Windsor and we will be working with Eastern Health to set up something
similar in the way of collaborative team clinics in Clarenville.
More is
coming, Mr. Speaker and there's money in the budget (inaudible).
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I'd encourage the minister to
call 811 himself. I would also say this person, individual, has been under
Eastern Health's care from the time he was born up until now, and now he's being
denied access. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr.
Speaker, I have countless seniors and professional drivers in my district who
have contacted my office stating they cannot renew their driver's licence. There
is no accessible transportation in my district. They cannot renew it because
they cannot access a physician. They can't get it through 811 and they can't get
it through a collaborative care clinic.
Mr.
Speaker: How does the minister think that this is acceptable?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
agreement with the Medical Association and the physicians of this province
relate solely to insured services that are covered by MCP. Drivers' medicals are
not. The NLMA have never brought this up as becoming an insured service.
Certainly, the Member highlights an issue. We'd be happy to work with him and
his constituents if he would provide us with details and we'll see what we can
do to help them.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, the minister said in the media that equal pay legislation is not a
silver bullet and referenced Ontario, who has already put the legislation in
place, as having one of the largest gender gaps in the country. However, for
every dollar earned by male counterparts, women in Ontario earn 89 cents. But
here in our province, women only earn 66 cents on the man's dollar.
I ask
the minister: What message does she think she's sending to women and
gender-diverse groups in this province?
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the hon. Member and thank you for the attention on these topics. I would
ask the Member to check her facts to see if those statistics are indeed
accurate.
But I
will say, I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't reflect upon the Member's
statements yesterday, how I was very disheartened and disappointed to see her
comments to denounce child care and the advancements that have been made. What a
slap in the face to women it certainly was.
She is
completely out of line with her party because I know that the party she sits
with has been a long-time advocate for accessible, affordable child care in this
province. And, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed good child care that is going to help
get women back in to be competitive in the workforce, which is one of the
barriers that we are taking down as a Liberal government here in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, I actually take
offence to that.
I was
pointing out the difference between child care for all families and single
parents and, basically, equal pay so women don't, actually, earn 66 cents on the
male dollar. Really, honestly, I take offence in what she is implying and
basically is putting women against women. It's putting women against women and
that's not my intent, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a very serious issue that the whole province needs to actually stand up and say:
women need to be treated fairly.
Mr.
Speaker, the government says they are paving the way for other provinces to take
the lead in new initiative. Yet, currently, the only province in Atlantic Canada
without pay legislation and currently has the largest gender gap in this country
is our province.
So I ask
the minister: Isn't 40 years long enough to close the wage gap?
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you and, again, Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the attention to the topic.
Again,
it's going to take concrete steps – what we're seeing. This government invested
$750,000 not a year ago into Sandpiper Ventures, a capital venture that is
strictly aimed – it is mandated to support women in the tech sector, the growing
tech sector, I might add, here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again,
child care: this gets women back in – and the reason why we see such a large,
wide gender wage gap is because women are the caregivers and we know that.
Traditionally, since the world began, women are the ones who take care of
children and take care of aging parents. So we need to do what we can to get
people, to get women back in the workforce.
That is
exactly what we are doing with the Premier's gender round table and, of course,
every initiative that we are making we are committed to doing everything we can.
Those conversations and that work is ongoing every day. I hope the Member can
understand it and she is welcome to come over and join the conversation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we've recently heard in the media the Privacy Commissioner talking
about the fact that he's had to go to court to fight this government on the
ability to be able to see information which, by all accounts, should be public
information. The government is hiding behind client-solicitor privilege on
everything.
I can
remember being on this side of the House when Members over there were showing –
as of Bill 29, blacked-out pieces of paper and so on. And now they're doing the
exact same thing.
So I ask
the government: Will you take the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and stop
hiding behind client-solicitor privilege and make changes to legislation, if
necessary, to eliminate that loophole that's currently being used by this
government?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
As the
Member points out, that matter was before the court and it continues to be
before the court, as it is headed to the Court of Appeal in this province, so I
won't comment any further on that, other than to say that the Trial Division
decision did follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada. I respect
the decision of the Trial Division and we will respect the decision of the Court
of Appeal as well.
With
regard to any issues ongoing with ATIPPA, we received, in the last several
months, a report from former Chief Justice Orsborn to review the ATIPPA
legislation. The Department of Justice and Public Safety is currently reviewing
his recommendations, which includes recommendations on solicitor-client
privilege. When that review is done we will bring any proposed amendments to the
House of Assembly for discussion.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
reason why it's before the court is because this government brought it before
the court. Prior to that, it was not an issue. So they've created the problem,
now they're hiding behind what they created.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had numerous people continue to reach out to me about provision of
rapid antigen tests. Almost every province in the country are providing them
free of charge to the general public, you can pick them up at public libraries
or clinics or retail locations. Not so here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and
citizens who are already stretched with the price of gas, the price of food, the
price of home heat have an additional burden placed upon them to have to pay
anywhere from $15 to $20 for a rapid antigen test. Many of these people want to
do it because they obviously have immunocompromised family members and so on
that they want to protect.
I ask
the government: Will they reverse this decision and make rapid antigen tests
available to the general public?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
We have
a very open policy for PCRs and rapid PCRs, and the flow chart on the website
allows any individual who's concerned about their health to go through that. If
they need a PCR – rapid or otherwise – it is available at no charge. There is no
cost to the individual.
If
someone doesn't need a test according to that flow chart, then it's not
medically necessary in the views of Public Health and we do not provide it. If
people choose to spend their money on rapid tests, that is an individual choice,
over which we have no opinion one way or another.
We have
a limited supply which we are using in guidance of Public Health and we continue
to keep a small stockpile against the next wave.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I will
now rule on the point of privilege raised by the Member of Humber - Bay of
Islands on May 2, 2022.
In
Chapter 3 of Bosc and Gagnon, 3rd edition, it states that: “A complaint on a
matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded
precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that
a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter
must be raised at the earliest opportunity.”
In
reviewing this matter, I am satisfied that the Member for Humber - Bay of
Islands has met the second condition noted above. That is, the matter has been
raised at the earliest opportunity.
The
other condition outlined in the authorities is that the Speaker must be
convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made.
In
Parliamentary Immunity in Canada,
2016, Joseph Maingot provides a practical definition of parliamentary privilege:
“If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a Member of
Parliament – i.e., any of the Member's activities that have a connection with a
proceeding in Parliament – that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.”
In order
for me to find that a prima facie, or on first impression, breach of the
Member's privileges, the Member must be clear as to how his privileges as a
Member have been impacted; that is, how his work as a parliamentarian has been
impeded.
I draw
Members' attention to Part II of the House
of Assembly Act, which is the law passed in this Legislature to address
issues around Member's conflict of interest. The statute is very clear. All
Members must file their financial disclosures and the Commissioner has the right
and the responsibility under the law to request the information he deems
necessary to assist Members in fulfilling their statutory duties. The
Commissioner also has the legal authority to issue a report to this House where
such information is not received.
The
Commissioner has issued such a report under the authority of the
House of Assembly Act and it is this
report that is the subject of the Member's point of privilege.
The
Commissioner has a duty and responsibility given to him by the Legislature under
the duly enacted law. He has issued reports regarding compliance of the Member
with statutory requirements. In his point of privilege, the Member argues that
the report impacts his reputation. However, any impact on the reputation of a
Member further to such a report may be a consequence of the operation of the law
itself. It is not a breach of that Member's parliamentary privileges.
I note
that the tabling of this report triggers a requirement by the House to deal with
this in a prescribed time frame. In light of that, I feel it is incumbent on me
to clarify three misleading comments made by the Member in his point of
privilege.
One, in
his argument, the Member cites the Conflict of Interest Act. This is incorrect.
The applicable legislation is the Part II of the
House of Assembly Act. I note that the relevant provisions of the
act are outlined in the Commissioner's report and they include definitions that
are somewhat different from those cited in the Member's point of privilege.
Secondly, the Member stated that, “I must remind the Members of this House of
Assembly that the findings of the Joyce
Report of 2018 were proven false by a Supreme Court decision.” This is also
false. Out of respect and in deference to the court, I must clarify that there
has been no Supreme Court decision regarding
The Joyce Report of 2018.
In the
point of privilege, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands discusses personal
financial information and references a private interest in a company. I would
like to bring to the attention of Members that no such reference was made by the
Commissioner. Further, the Commissioner's report does not disclose the Member's
personal financial information.
Conflict
of interest is a serious matter, particularly for elected officials. The
statutory financial disclosure requirements of the
House of Assembly Act are fundamental
to the conflict of interest analysis that this House, by law, we asked the
Commissioner to complete this report. All Members, including myself, are
familiar with and must abide by these requirements. They are intended to provide
the public with confidence in us as elected officials and to protect the
integrity of our political system. A report respecting the compliance of a
Member with these requirements does not, in and of itself, breach the privilege
of that Member.
Therefore, I rule that there is no prima facie point of privilege.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I give notice on
tomorrow I will move the following motion:
THAT
this House concur in the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
entitled the Joyce Report, April 12, 2022;
AND THAT
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is directed to submit the required
information to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards within seven business
days of the adoption of this resolution;
AND THAT
should the information not be submitted, in accordance with paragraph 45(1)(c)
of the House of Assembly Act, the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands be suspended from the House of Assembly;
AND THAT
the said suspension be without pay and shall continue until such a time that the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards advises the Speaker that the statutory
obligations referenced in the report have been met.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motions?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reason for the petition, again, is to increase the support for Labrador West
seniors.
Reasons
for the petition:
The need
for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is
steadily increasing. Life-long residents of the region are facing the
possibility of needing to leave their homes in order to afford to live and
receive adequate care. Additional housing options, including assisted living
care facilities like those found throughout the rest of the province, for
seniors have become a requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is
currently not being met.
WHEREAS
the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes
where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth.
WHEREAS
the means for the increased number of seniors in Labrador West to happily age in
place are currently not available in the region.
WHEREUPON we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly
to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador
West to age in place by providing affordable housing options for seniors and
assisted living care facilities for those requiring care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. BROWN:
Once again I bring this
petition to the House on behalf of the seniors and the residents of Labrador
West. Those who have signed it actually have said to me one day I'll be a senior
in Labrador West. So once again we're asking that the residents of Labrador
West, their concerns around seniors' care, housing and that be addressed in a
timely fashion.
These
people built Labrador West. They continue to live there. They have their
families there. They have their lives there. It's just a cruel thing to think
about that some of the people, in the back of their mind, are going: At some
point I'm going to have to leave this region, be away from my children, my
grandchildren, their friends and the community that they helped build.
It's not
just the next community over like you'd find somewhere on the Island where
you're 10 minutes away, five minutes away, so on and so forth. This is hours
upon hours away if you're driving. In some cases, it's thousands and thousands
of dollars for airline tickets if the grandkids want to go see Nan and Pop.
So this
is the thing that we're facing in Labrador West is the lack of care. Home care
is basically non-existent, we do not have a personal care home and what we have
in long-term care right now is very insufficient of the currently growing need.
There
was a report done in the early 2000s that talked about there was going to be an
explosion of seniors in Labrador West, and the report was absolutely correct. We
have a massive amount of senior population in the region, and they don't want to
go. They don't want to be forced out of their homes, out of their community,
because of something that every other place in this province gets to enjoy the
fact that many other regions have the ability for personal care homes, care
attendants and all that.
So this
is what we're asking for now, to be treated fairly and equitably among that.
Thank
you, Speaker, for this.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the reasons for this petition are as follows:
The
residents of South West Arm are troubled with the unsafe conditions of the road
and lack of maintenance to the roads that are maintained by Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and maintain the roads to a standard that
are safe for travel by all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, South West Arm is a pretty important part of my district. It's made up
of multiple communities. When you drive down that highway, you quickly see how
unsafe it's become. I say tongue-in-cheek, but it's a very true story that the
guardrails are asleep. There's no way that it could be anything else because,
obviously, Transportation and Infrastructure would have removed them, if they
had just fallen over. They must be just laid down sleeping. Because they're all
lying down. And it's extremely dangerous conditions.
You're
talking about some of the sharpest turns – literally, a hairpin turn they call
the S turn – and the guardrails are falling down. And they've been that way for
four years. There has been multiple pictures sent; the road is in massive
disrepair, potholes. What's most troubling to me is that we've gotten to a point
where we have fish trucks that refuse to go down over the road to collect fish.
Now,
millions and millions of dollars worth of business happens down there, and the
fish trucks will not go collect the fish. You've got to think about that. How
can we just allow that to happen? I mean, it's an entire region of the province.
On top of that we have a school down there, Southwest Arm Academy. Partway up
the road to South West Arm, students go to Clarenville and then the rest of them
go down to Southwest Arm Academy. The kids that go to Clarenville, they miss
about half as much school as Southwest Arm Academy.
That's
because the roads are not maintained. Now, I've had a conversation with the
minister and he knows full well we have staff from Transportation and
Infrastructure that have reached out to my office and told me their concerns
with the road, the lack of maintenance, the type of sand that's used for winter
maintenance, but it's more about the potholes and what they could do. The other
thing is that we have individuals who work with the department who drive that
road every single day to and from work. They understand the issues; they've
highlighted the issues. The department is doing nothing about them.
So we
have a Department of Transportation and Infrastructure truck that drives from
the end of South West Arm to the depot and back on a daily basis, every single
day. So it's impossible for me to believe that Transportation and Infrastructure
doesn't understand these problems. Plus, my office has sent hundreds of
pictures, videos and all kinds of drone footage to get this fixed. Not a
response; it stays the same. Signage is falling over, but what's most troubling
is how dangerous this road is. It should not take somebody getting incredibly
hurt or killed in order for this to get fixed.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition:
The
safety of 400-plus workers at the OCI plant in Bonavista who cross the poorly
marked crosswalk on Campbell Street in Bonavista, a minimum of four times a day,
is a major safety concern. Adding to this issue are the poor sightlines for
drivers when approaching the crosswalk. Many thousands of tourists as well
travel this street during plant production season, with the vast majority of
whom are unaware of the area's safety risk.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the safety concern at this
crosswalk by erecting amber lighting and, thus, creating a safer environment for
the workers crossing this busy street.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, there are many demands on TI for safety issues on our
roadwork. We have 400-plus employees, 65 of which are senior citizens, who work
at OCI. Four times a day they cross the plant to get to their parking lot, back
and forth. Sometimes we default that when we look at the Janeway and compare it
to the Miller Centre, we see that there's quite a dichotomy of facility and
services sometimes that's provided in those two elements.
I would
say we have a safety issue of which pertains to a senior population that we have
in Bonavista. The sightlines on this street are very poor. If you ever travel to
historic Bonavista, you know that many tourists travel there for the first time
and many would be passing through Campbell Street to head to Church Street in
the heart of town. The sightlines aren't great. The paint we use on our
crosswalks doesn't last. I'm not sure, if I speculated, lasting two weeks, but
they certainly don't last a season and sometimes they're not painted until the
end of the tourism season.
Amber
lighting – I would like for the TI officials to have a look at this particular
crosswalk, have a look at the crosswalk, do an analysis of it and then see what
the safety issue would be while the plant is in production. Because our goal
would be to make sure that people remain safe, those that are driving the
economy in the District of Bonavista, and I think the amber lighting will
certainly help improve the safety of those at the OCI plant in Bonavista.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
The
Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure. Whereas many commute
outside the Avalon on a daily basis for work as well as commercial, residential
and tourism growth in our region has increased the volume of traffic on this
highway.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure
to enhance and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
Speaker,
I have mentioned this many times, as you know, in the House bringing up Witless
Bay Line and the conditions of the roads. This time of the year we have crab
trucks that are transporting crab from the Southern Shore – right from Petty
Harbour, right to Trepassey, St. Shott's area that they drive across Witless Bay
Line. It's a shorter distance for them when they are leaving these fishing
ports. It's critical that they have some good infrastructure to go on.
I mean,
you drive these roads and it's incredible how bad they are. I think one of the
first times that the survey for the conditions of the roads in Atlantic Canada,
when it first came out, I am going to say the first time it happened, the
Witless Bay Line was on the top 10 list. So it was an original list that
eventually started. It was one of the first roads that were on it from
Newfoundland and Labrador and it hasn't changed since then. We've done a couple
of kilometres in there – four kilometres – and there's more work needs to be
done.
We have
people that use it for towing trailers and campers across the Witless Bay Line
and they decide to go out around, go out through the Goulds, go out the Goulds
Bypass, come in the Trans-Canada rather than go across the Witless Bay Line. So
there is something that should be looked at.
I know
that they are in there putting some cold patch down, but it's only a temporary
fix. Then the winter comes and the plows hit it and all of a sudden all the cold
patch is gone again. So it's something that I would love for the minister –
hopefully it's in his budget this year – to be able to do something with the
roads in the district.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition:
The
Local Service District of West Bay and the Town of Lourdes have an agreement in
place for the extension of water services to West Bay. They applied for funding
through the Canada Community-Building Fund but when the water service was
tested, it didn't meet the federal standard resulting in the rejection of the
application. The water service does meet the provincial standard and the
communities still agree in principle on extending the water supply into West
Bay, pending funding.
Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to secure funding through the Department
of Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water for the
residents of West Bay.
Speaker,
one of the principles of the Health Accord talks about the social determinants
of health. One of the social determinants of health is clean drinking water.
Unfortunately, the community of West Bay has no drinking water. In 2022, the
Local Service District of West Bay has access to no drinking water. They do not
have a water system.
The Town
of Lourdes has a system that was designed with enough capacity to take on the
community of West Bay. They have an agreement in place to make that happen. What
they need is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the funding
necessary for this to take place.
Every
summer, they wind up carrying water from household to household just to do the
basic necessities of life. There's a real opportunity here, when we talk about
regionalization and moving forward for two communities who have an opportunity
to share a water system, to make that happen.
I urge
government, whether it's Municipal Affairs, whether it's Transportation and
Infrastructure, to make this happen. Let's fund the water system, the extension,
so that the people of West Bay can have access to clean drinking water.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper first reading of Bill 55.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL,
for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act,
Bill 55, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act, Bill 55, and that said bill be
now read a first 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.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 55)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Life Insurance Act. (Bill 55)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009, Bill 56,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009, Bill 56, and the said bill be now
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009,” carried. (Bill 56)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Condominiums Act, 2009. (Bill 56)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act,
2000, Bill 58, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 58, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 58)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 58)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.,
today, Tuesday, May 3.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move,
notwithstanding Standing Order 9, that this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 4, 2022, but shall continue to sit for to conduct Government
Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at
midnight.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have,
I think, four minutes left over from yesterday that I didn't get to use.
Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I just want to say is I just got a message here from a
constituent. This is just information for the House and the minister responsible
for Tourism, I guess, about this Turo, which is being promoted. It's the Turo
program. I've had someone reach out to me who said that they went to their
insurance company about having their car as part of this Turo program and
they've been told by their insurance company that they could end up with their
car insurance cancelled.
I'm not
sure if the minister and the government is aware of this issue. He is suggesting
that there may be some kind of an amendment or something required to some
regulations to allow this to happen, perhaps, or maybe it's just not going to
happen. But I know that the government has been, I believe – the minister has
been and others – promoting this idea and so on. While it may have seemed like a
good thing, apparently there's a significant challenge. So nobody is going to
put their car forward for tourists, if they're going to get their insurance
cancelled as a result. I thought I would just put it out there for the
information of the House in case they weren't aware.
Obviously, I only have a couple of minutes left here so I'll just go back to
where I was my first time I spoke and it kind of ties into the emergency debate
that my colleagues in the Official Opposition put forward, the motion for
yesterday, and certainly it has dominated Question Period.
Just to
add my voice on behalf of people I represent, Mr. Speaker, there are two things
I have been bombarded with: issues around health care, family doctors,
collaborative clinics and I could go on and on and on about that one, perhaps I
will have another opportunity, but the other thing is the cost of living.
Government keeps going back to the five-point plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is too loud.
P. LANE:
And just to, I suppose, add
the voice of my constituents, not just me and my personal opinion but people who
I represent. I am getting the calls and the messages, as are all Members, and
government needs to realize that the five-point plan helped some people: people
at the very, very lowest end.
Again,
if you are a senior citizen, as an example, who worked your whole life, maybe
you have a few RRSPs, maybe you have a small pension or something, you got
nothing. There's noting in it, like zero, zilch. If you are somebody who is
working at a minimum wage job or a little better than a minimum wage job and
you're barely struggling to survive: you got nothing. A lot of people – this
house insurance, they don't own a house. They don't have tenant insurance. It's
doing absolutely nothing for the average working person.
That is
what, I believe, my colleagues over here, all around me, have been saying over
and over again. I'm sure we understand it. I understand that we're strapped
financially, I get it, but it is one thing to try to get the province on an even
keel and there is another thing about having to care for the people that are
living in this province. People are really struggling to survive, they really
are.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I can't
hear the Member speak.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the protection.
Mr.
Speaker, when we talk about these issues and we look at the soaring price at the
pumps. I mean, my God, we're well over $2 a litre at the pumps. Whoever thought
that would happen? The cost of home heating fuel, the price of groceries, people
are really, really struggling. Particularly the people who are not at the very
bottom, who receive some help, but that group that are just above. We need to do
more for them. It hasn't been done in this budget, and I encourage the
government to please do so.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to, in my next 20 minutes – when the 20 minutes shows up on the clock; there we
go – speak about connecting this province. I've talked about some of these
issues before, but I thought I would try to tie a variety of themes that are
very important to the District of Lake Melville – and my 20 seconds are almost
up but thank you to my colleague.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. TRIMPER:
There we go; we'll get there.
I remember the Leader of the Official Opposition did this one time; I watched
him do it.
Anyway,
thank you very much. I want to talk about connecting the province and some
priorities, some things that we're making progress on. There is, of course, with
such a huge piece of geography, so much need.
I want
to talk about a little trip I just did. I left my district a little while ago.
There I am in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and, of course, to get to Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, while I didn't start in the Torngat Mountains, I need to speak
about the importance of proceeding with this North Coast highway. Whether we
call it a prefeasibility study or a feasibility study, we need to recognize that
the people of Torngat Mountains are looking for a connection to this province.
So much
that we're dealing with in this budget debate is about the cost of travel, to
get folks from the North Coast out to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is the hub
for Labrador, and on into larger centres. Most of the time this is by air and
the challenge that we have in doing that, and how important a road access would
be.
It's
interesting my colleague from Torngat Mountains; we actually worked together
some 11 years ago, over the span of some two years on that very project. This
was a private sector initiative. It was a company she was working for; I was
working as a consultant. We know the route. We know so many of the issues. It's
actually very straightforward between Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River
and on into Postville and Makkovik. This phase, there's no reason why we can't
get started at it, and I can tell you a lot of the work already exists.
Back to
my drive; the other day, my wife, my wonderful dog Cracker and I, we jumped in
the vehicle and we started driving out from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. For those of
you who know the route, once you leave Happy Valley-Goose Bay, it is 410
kilometres before you see any kind of service; whether it be a washroom,
telephone service that you can count on, maybe some other kind of emergency
support.
I ask
you, where else in the province might you go, venturing down a little road, for
410 kilometres? Just imagine you leave from here and you go well to the other
side, probably to my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, I think 410
kilometres might get you out there somewhere. So just imagine covering that
entire distance with no support if in the event something happens. And we're
talking some pretty heavy-duty country and absolutely no opportunity for
support.
We still
need to think about it. I've been advocating for, I call them pit stops,
emergency support, communications, maybe even just a little bit of food, and, by
the way, a washroom. What the heck is wrong with having a washroom somewhere
along on that highway? That was obstacle number one.
By the
way, we went a day earlier because – and this was just weeks ago – of the
snowstorm coming the following day actually was of sufficient size and
configuration that it again shut down the highway in the vicinity of Cartwright
- L'Anse au Clair District from Lodge Bay I think to Red Bay. That road was
again closed. I was looking at images on her phone this morning. It's still
dealing with severe snowbanks. That's challenge number two.
We then
camped out in Forteau, along with some other folks who were waiting for five
days before they could cross the Strait of Belle Isle. The reason why we
couldn't get across is because the ice concentration, pressure, configuration
has been so extreme this year that even with the escort of an icebreaker, it was
an amazing experience.
Now,
we're not talking the heavy sea ice that we see in Northern Labrador, but it was
of sufficient strength and concentration. And if anyone follows me on Facebook,
you can see that our ferry stopped several times and the icebreaker had to come
around. As I posted there and as I'll say in this hon. House, it is really time
to get serious about looking at an underground tunnel to connect the two chunks
of geography that are our province. I can just imagine the economic boost that
would occur. There's so much financial argument to proceeding with that, and I
can tell you from the perspective of somebody who travels that route often, it
would pay dividends in terms of so much other support for this province.
We
crossed over, landed in St. Barbe, and then I was actually making my way down to
see relatives in Nova Scotia. We started driving down along the Southwest Coast
of Newfoundland and we were stopped again for a day because of the extreme
winds. Now, the infrastructure is there and I'm not sure what we do with
140-kilometre-an-hour winds, but suffice to say there was a tractor-trailer
overturned that was a solid reflection of the strength of the winds and the
conditions.
We live
in a heck of province and there's no question we are being challenged by the
changes that we're feeling in our climate, by the existing conditions and
logistics and so on. So all I'm saying to government is really we need some
vision, we need to look forward, and we really need to start thinking about some
investment now and how much that could save us over the long run.
Some of
the other issues that relate to this and just a little while ago in the House –
it's a bit abstract, and frankly I don't think it's going to cost a little
money, but I wanted to raise it again because there was interesting feedback
that I received, and it's this idea of how we communicate in terms of when we
are communicating.
Labrador, for example, functions with two time zones. That's not counting the
confusion that we have, especially down the southwest part of Labrador, down in
Blanc-Sablon area, which is in another time zone, and then I look to my
colleague from Labrador West who also deals with the Quebec zone. There's not
much we can do about that, but could we at least consider putting all of
Labrador in one time zone? Next, could we consider moving everybody to standard
time?
Stop the
shift from this twice a year jolt of jet lag that I think most of the province
feels, as we adjust to that hour difference, stay on the same time throughout
the year. Yeah, there are going to be some adjustments, particularly in the
morning and in the evening. I believe we'll get used to it, and I note that the
United States are certainly looking like they're moving in that direction. I
suggest that we pay close attention.
Finally,
I'm just going to throw it out there. It's certainly not a sword to die on, but
I think it's one that we could consider. If you again watch me on all kinds of
communications and meetings, all of us receive notices that there's going to be
a particular briefing at 2 NL time tomorrow. I still wonder what NL time is. Are
we talking Newfoundland time? I'm sure they're not talking Labrador time, but
again, it's that confusion and how many missed appointments, missed flights and
so on. So these are some of the things about connecting our province together.
Another
aspect that I speak often of and I just want to mention it again. I share with
the minister – I was here last evening at Estimates. We talked about the Medical
Transportation Assistance Program and how vital it is, particularly for
districts in Labrador, but also in rural parts of Newfoundland. If you don't
have insurance coverage to get you to the health care that we are obligated,
that we are proud of in this country to be able to provide, this is a real
burden. It's not just a financial burden; it's a health burden. I'm very sorry
to say it's caused and led to mortality.
I know
of people who have cancelled appointments for such serious situations as cancer,
perhaps cardiac attention and so on. They just can't even afford the difference
in what we pay them. I look forward to whatever we see from the implementation
plan of the Health Accord. Many of us have a lot of confidence in the co-chairs.
I do believe they are listening. I do believe this may just be a report that
never sees any dust. I do hope it's truly an accord that we can all work with
and agree to. It's not going to change things overnight, but I believe there is
so much that's critically urgent right now, that I look forward to seeing it
roll out.
Air
ambulance is one. I was just dealing with a very challenging situation for the
last five days with a gentleman out of Churchill Falls, and I'd like to thank
all those that participated. If I had to list the number of departments that
were involved, I was thinking – and organizations – probably four or five that
were required to get this one individual out. Not necessarily a medical
emergency but it was one that we required medical assistance for. I'd like to
thank and acknowledge everyone who was involved. You know who you are.
One
issue that I think all of us as MHAs recognize and realize is the importance of
sport. I'm hearing it in government and I welcome that and some support in terms
of recognizing the cost of recreational pursuits and so on. But, as we know,
it's the next generations, those that are in school, who so embrace, thrive and,
let's face it, get them on a really good road for a healthy life, by getting
involved in sports, particularly in high schools.
In
Labrador, I can tell you, we are constantly running into problems that seem to
be increasing. Once things settle down for me this week, I know I have to get
back to some folks in the Lake Melville District who have come to me very
concerned because, again, they can't afford to take teams – and these are teams
with athletes with high skills – that are trying to get out to Newfoundland for
competition and they can't afford it.
The
subsidy is wholly insufficient and it's causing – well, it's preventing any
opportunity. I note – and I don't want to throw it out as an attack or a
criticism, it's a reality – we have the concentration of our population, we're
only 6 per cent of this provincial population in Labrador, we get that, we
understand that. So more on occasion, we probably have folks representing
Labrador schools and communities who are going to travel to the Island for
competitions.
But I
can tell you there's a general reluctance for those teams to come to Labrador.
We'd love to see you. But it's increasingly more of a trend in terms of teams or
events, or even sport associations, and I can name a couple of them, who have
declared that they will no longer host and hold provincial competitions in
Labrador because of the expense of travelling there. Well, they recognize it,
and I can tell you we deal with it every day.
Again,
these are all important points about how we can try to pull this province
together, and it's incredibly frustrating.
I'm
thinking that if the Health Accord can really do what it is intended with its
implementation document, so much of this is going to be about, as I say, pulling
us together, but also recognizing that it should not be an extreme disadvantage
to live in any part of this province. I often hear people say things like, well,
you choose to live there, whether it be in Lake Melville or even the more
isolated communities of the North Coast in Torngat Mountains.
Well,
guess what? People who are in these communities – I look to my colleague from
Lab West – we, collectively as a community, are heavily involved in very
important, lucrative economic drivers for this province. And as we are so often
arguing – the three of us sitting here on this side of the House – for greater
attention because it is those same people that are running the Voisey's Bay
project, the iron ore mines of Labrador West, the Muskrat Falls Project, if and
when it gets up and running, will be very important in terms of providing
electricity for so much of Newfoundland and so many other aspects of our
economy.
We need
to recognize that if we are going to develop these resources, and develop them
wisely, we need people who are going to live adjacent to those areas. And all we
are asking for is some adjacency consideration for people to feel proud about
where they live, not to feel that they need to be propped up. I think, frankly,
we can get there but it is going to be all about good communication.
With
that, Speaker, I think I am going to stop on that point. I really appreciate the
opportunity to talk about how we can tie our province together.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
going to have a few words before I won't be able to. I know a lot of people
would like for me to stop bringing up issues concerning the Humber - Bay of
Islands and Corner Brook but that isn't going to happen.
So I
just want to stand up, Mr. Speaker, and speak on the issues I have been speaking
about for a while: cataract surgery. We see the backlog again, the number of
people backlogged, and why this government and the Minister of Health and
Community Services will not allow to free up time at the hospital and now have
to force them to go to Stephenville even though the equipment is not up to
standard.
I
received another letter from the Minister of Health and Community Services
talking about the report. There is a report that was done up, and this is the
cuteness of it. The report was done up and you're talking about how much it
costs per surgery. The report that the minister referred to in the letter, it
said it was something like $540. I haven't got the letter right here in front of
me but it was something like $500 or $560, not the $1,160 or $1,260 that was
reported.
But here
is the detail that was left out, that is concerning one eye. Most cataracts are
done with two eyes. So when you add that price together, it is the price that is
in the report. So to put it into a letter that here is the actual cost to have
these surgeries done at a public facility is half what it costs, when you know
there needs to be two eyes. That is the kind of stuff.
I know
the Member for St. George's - Humber is listening, call some of your
constituents, call the Apex building and see what I am saying, if it's not
correct. I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay did and I know he knows
what I am saying is correct. Phone the Apex building and get the same
information.
So when
the Minister of Health and Community Services puts in a letter, trying to say
that here's the report that was done and here's what it costs to do it in a
public, and knowing that's only for one eye and there's always two eyes that are
going to be done when doing cataracts, is just wrong.
There
are 800 seniors on the West Coast now; they're going to start surgeries in
Stephenville now. You should ask have they got the full equipment. You should go
out and ask. I'll guarantee you that you will stand up and say this is wrong.
Ask them do they have the full packs to complete the eye surgery. Ask them.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Ask them what?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
I can't hear you.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ask them why they didn't have
it.
E. JOYCE:
Why they didn't have it? Is
because the machine is outdated and the reason why the machine is outdated – and
now the packs that they made for the outdated machine at the Sir Thomas Riddick
Hospital, they don't make the packs anymore. They are actually gone off to try
to get more packs. So what they have to do is take half of one pack and half of
another pack, throw half out of this pack, half out of the other pack, to make
one full pack. I say to the Member: If you want a number, I'll give you the
number to confirm everything I am saying here.
For this
government to talk about here is the amount of money that we got and here is
where we're going to take care – and there are 800 seniors that could be done,
their eyes. This is why I cannot vote for this budget. I just can't vote for it.
On my conscience, I can't vote for it.
Time
after time after time I have brought this up. I gave them options. I asked the
Premier to call, the Premier never called. The information that is put out there
using a letter, doing one eye instead of two and saying here is what it costs at
a public facility when the report is there. I can even try to track down a copy
of the report. It's over $1,100 with the lens now being including, because
before you had to pay for the lens. Now, with the lens, it's over $1,200. And to
put in a letter it's only $560 or $570, it's just wrong. Just making false
excuses to deny seniors their eyesight.
I can't
comprehend it, the reason why. The only reason why: a personality conflict right
there. I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services go out and talk and
say they could do it at the hospital in Corner Brook. As I mentioned before,
there are two days at the hospital in Corner Brook. There is one person who does
glaucoma for the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – the whole
province.
Anything
I'm saying, the minister could stand up and I'll even give him my time. The
whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – now, what they're saying is that,
okay, start cancelling the glaucoma across the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, start cancelling it and start doing cataract surgery so you could get
your wait-list down. And glaucoma is much more serious than cataracts. That's
what the minister is saying: Cancel it.
And the
other one is retina in the hospital, because at the Apex building they don't
have the ability to do retina or glaucoma – they could, if they were allowed,
but they're not even allowed. They can get the equipment, but they're not
allowed to do it and they don't have the equipment, so it has to be done at the
hospital.
So what
the minister is saying and this government is saying to people of this Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador with your eye surgery: Cancel glaucoma, start doing
cataracts to knock down your wait-list. Go to Stephenville where the equipment
is outdated. They don't even have the packs for the equipment; they have to
substitute stuff in and out. Let the people now start right from Baie Verte,
starts out, right on until Corner Brook, start going to Stephenville. Corner
Brook residents, start driving to Stephenville.
I have
had numerous calls from the Premier's own district and he won't even stand up
for them. It is sad. It is actually sad that here is the Premier of this
province, a doctor himself – I'm not disputing any work he ever did and all his
volunteer work; I'm not disputing that – but when you get in government, all of
a sudden, whatever happens to many people in government is that they change.
They change. And you know that, Mr. Speaker; you're aware of that. You've seen
that, haven't you, how people change? Yeah, you have. People change. People
change when they're in government because they need this great position, they
have to get up in this position or we have to stand up and defend something.
But for
the Premier of the province who's a doctor himself, he has all the information
that these cataract surgeries can be done – the cost at a public facility versus
at the Apex facility is much cheaper. The cost to actually do the surgery is the
same no matter where it's at, but the actual cost to perform the surgeries is
much lower. There's a wait-list of 800 seniors that they can start and do it
much more efficient.
So I'll
say to the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, sorry.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Green Bay.
E. JOYCE:
Green Bay, sorry. All I
remember is Springdale over so many years. We go back a long ways. All I can
remember is Springdale with the Member and I spent a lot of time in Baie Verte
over the years. He's over there waving to me and saying what a great soccer team
we had, the Curling Rangers.
But, Mr.
Speaker, on a serious note, I just want to let you know, right now you may get
calls from people – I don't know who's on the wait-list; I really don't. I just
know the numbers. You may start getting calls now that people can't come to
Corner Brook; they have to go on to Stephenville to get the cataracts. It won't
be done in the Apex building because not allowed.
Go to
Stephenville, it costs you more. It costs you more in travel. People from Humber
Valley, the Premier's own district now, have to bypass Corner Brook, go on to
Stephenville – that's only when they can do it, by the way. This is the big
thing with the Apex building. If they want to work weekends on their own and
call the staff in, they can work weekends. If they want to work nights, they can
work nights. They can work whenever they want, but at the hospital it's a set
time on a set day; Stephenville, the same thing. They can't work past a day or
two in Stephenville because then they have to start calling people in. If you
are working at the Apex building, your own building, where you have your own
staff, you can work weekends, nights, to clear up the backlog.
The
minister knows. The minister is well aware of this here. This is how you create
the backlog by saying okay, we can only do it a day a week at the hospital. That
creates the backlog. But if you get rid of that backlog and then go with the
quota that's given out by the Health and Community Services, you would never
have a backlog because you have a certain number that you have to get done.
Can you
imagine? It's mind-boggling when you dig into it. It's mind-boggling. If any of
us here in this room right now had a broken leg or a broken arm, as quick as we
can get in, we get it done. Anybody here, quick as we can get in, we can get
done. If you got cataract surgery, there's a quota. You will not go past the
quota. There's a wait-list right now of 800 – I don't know if they started in
Stephenville yet. Come April 1, you have a quota. I don't know what it is,
1,700, 1,800, whatever it is. You have the quota for Western Newfoundland,
excluding St. Anthony.
So once
that quota is done, if there's a list – the backlog – you can't fulfill the
backlog. If it is leg, arms, anything else, you can do it. But cataracts, they
won't. I even wrote the minister and brought this up, but guess what? Still the
big backlog. If you had a leg, an arm, it's no problem.
And the
other thing I brought up on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, is the laundry
services for the new acute care hospital in Corner Brook. It's gone; taken out.
I wrote the minister and asked him. He said: Yeah, well, in July, two ministers
got together in consultation. I said: What two ministers? I wasn't there. Oh, it
was consultations in between. I said: No, because I was in there. Here's the
speech you gave in Corner Brook. Ah well, in collaboration it cost $100,000 per
square foot; we can't afford it. Why didn't you tell the people that? The
election –
AN HON. MEMBER:
I think the Member for Corner
Brook was campaigning on it.
E. JOYCE:
Campaigning on it.
The
election in 2021, in January and February 2021, they were out saying the laundry
was in, during the election in Corner Brook and Humber - Bay of Islands and the
West Coast. And that affects four of our districts. I have the print of it,
during the election.
The
actual RFP closed January 24, 2021. They knew, but out campaigning, saying how
dare someone say the laundry is not included in the new acute care hospital. How
dare –?
P. LANE:
Who said that?
E. JOYCE:
The Premier himself was out
saying it.
P. LANE:
Go away. Who else?
E. JOYCE:
The Member for Corner Brook
was out saying it.
If
you're going to do it, do it. At least have the honesty to tell people you're
going to do it, that you did it. Don't be out campaigning during election
because the election was prolonged, and saying, oh no, it's in, it's in, when
the RFP closed January 24. The laundry's 75 jobs gone. But if you're going to
move it out, at least have the honesty to go and tell the people. That was a
commitment that the Liberal government, which I was a part of, made that all the
services within the Western Memorial Hospital would be in an acute-care
hospital.
That was
a commitment. We made that commitment to the unions. I walked out on the steps
there on the Confederation Building and 500 or 600 – and I made that commitment
on behalf of the government. We lived up to that commitment until we found out,
by luck, that it was taken out, that is was actually taken out.
So if
anything I am saying here – if someone wants to dispute it, stand up and I'll
show you documentation about the RFP. I'll show you the statements that were
made in Corner Brook during the election. This was the kind of stuff – when I
hear things about cataract surgery, when I hear information about cataract
surgery, I have got to go check because I can assure you, there's a different
side of it.
And this
is why I'm going to find it so hard to vote – I won't vote for the budget, on
principle alone, when I know there are 800 seniors that can be done like that –
start today. Let's do it in the Apex building. I don't care who gets paid. I'm
not worried about personalities. I just want those seniors – I cannot vote for
the budget, just on principle. Some of those seniors that we're talking about
today lost their licence, can't drive; in their house and can't get out. Many of
them cannot even read their medication and here we are standing in this House
talking about the great deficit we've got.
Here's
the issue with it: It don't cost any money. If you went into the Sir Thomas
Roddick Hospital and opened up that building seven days a week and you paid to
do the surgery, you're going to get paid. They're going to hire the staff, the
nurses, all the people in the OR, all the check-in people, they're all going to
have all that, the surgeons are going to get paid. If they did it in the Apex
building, they're going to get paid a lesser amount for the building, but the
money is there.
There is
no money; it's not costing no money. It's just the personalities – just
personalities. It boggles my mind about why this is not done. This is an easy
fix; a very easy fix but it won't be done. And as long as I get the opportunity
to speak on this here, I will.
Also
about the nurse practitioners: a great opportunity in Corner Brook. I heard the
minister when I asked the question about the nurse practitioner. He said we're
meeting with the union, the Nurses' Union. Meet with the nurse practitioners;
meet with their association. That's who you need to work with. Don't go standing
up and saying you're going to work with the nurses. Go and meet the nurse
practitioners who can help this out in Corner Brook.
There
are thousands of people in Western Newfoundland now, people waiting six, seven,
eight hours in the emergency room. Nurse practitioners could help out so easy.
So instead of standing up and saying: oh, we're going to discuss this with the
nurses. Go and meet with the nurse practitioners association. There are three
set up in Corner Brook now. The last count I heard they had over 4,000 people
going through the doors, paying out of their own pocket.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Thirty-five bucks a shot.
E. JOYCE:
How much?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Thirty-five.
E. JOYCE:
Thirty-five bucks a shot,
paid out of their own pocket.
That's
how many that Lawrence passed on to someone to pass on to me, how many people
they've seen and they are only opened up two or three months ago – 4,000. That
is probably higher now. I mean, that's a lot of people in Western Newfoundland.
That's a lot of people.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to bring up the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure for a second. I spoke to him, probably three weeks ago about an
issue out in Copper Mine Brook about the gabion baskets. I got to say that the
gabion baskets were done soon after because it was a treacherous situation. I
just want to recognize that, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure
did that.
The
Copper Mine Brook area where – I just wanted the people to listen from Lark
Harbour because the word will spread that I went over yesterday to speak to the
minister about Copper Mine Brook and the drop in the road and he had it on his
desk, the letter that I wrote him, he was reviewing that.
I just
want to let people know that the serious concern of the Copper Mine Brook and
the gabion baskets, when I brought it to the minister, he addressed it. And,
yesterday, when I went over to discuss about the letter I write, he had it on
his desk reading the letter. I just want to recognize that and let people know
that the minister is aware of it and hopefully where it is so bad, it is very
dangerous, that something will be done. Thank you, Minister, for the safety of
that area.
Mr.
Speaker, I only have another two minutes left and I am going to speak on the
helmets again on Side By Sides. I have to speak on that.
I can
tell you, the minister never came out and said: we're not putting it in. But
when I left this House and the reason why I voted for it, I had firm belief that
it was going to be done.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We all did.
E. JOYCE:
The minister did not come out
and say it's going to be done, but when you say: I understand, I got it, let me
put it in the regulations, seriously considering it. It is going to come out in
the regulations.
S. STOODLEY:
Any day now.
E. JOYCE:
Pardon me?
S. STOODLEY:
Any day now.
E. JOYCE:
Any day now you're going to
change it?
S. STOODLEY:
No, the regulations will be
out.
E. JOYCE:
Oh, that is a nice flippant
answer to the people who are going to be out: any day. Why don't you go out and
meet with the residents? How many people wrote you?
S. STOODLEY:
I gave you my cellphone
number.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. JOYCE:
My God, relax, relax.
Why
don't you go out and meet with the people who want you to meet with them?
S. STOODLEY:
I gave you my cellphone
number.
E. JOYCE:
Why don't you go out and meet
with the people?
S. STOODLEY:
I gave you my cellphone
number.
E. JOYCE:
Why don't you go out and meet
with the residents?
S. STOODLEY:
I gave them my cellphone
number.
E. JOYCE:
Oh, yeah, gave your cellphone
number.
There
are people asking for a public meeting with the Premier and the minister, and
refusing a public meeting – unheard of. I even wrote you and asked you on behalf
of – Brad Gallant wrote you and asked you for a public meeting. What did you
say? Got to go through your MHA.
So will
you commit to a public meeting on the West Coast now? Would you commit to a
public meeting?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
When you won't commit to a
public meeting to justify a decision that you made, you don't feel strong enough
in your own position. That's my personal view.
Brad
Gallant is waiting for your response for a public meeting.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm just
going to briefly speak on the budget. For me, Speaker, sometimes I do struggle
to, not find things to talk about, not issues to bring forward from my district,
sometimes I struggle because there are so many issues for my district. I look
around the province and I actually ask myself: How did we get here?
It's
pretty obvious here that there's very little consideration given to people in
rural, remote areas, especially in Northern Labrador. I was going to present a
petition again today but I didn't get a chance. It seems like all my petitions
are about serious needs that existed over the many decades, the many generations
since we joined Confederation.
As the
MHA for Torngat Mountains, six communities in Northern Labrador, each one of
them are recognized as Indigenous communities. It's really hard.
It's
kind of strange, too, I just started talking and now the banter is starting to
pick up again.
But why
do I have to put petitions in place? Like, for example, the petition I was going
to present today was on marine shipping. I wasn't going to ask for something
new. I was going to ask for the marine shipping to be reinstated from the
Island.
Now, why
would I have to ask for that? It's because, first off, the marine transportation
services to the North Coast of Labrador, to my district, were done without the
consultation, the full consultation of the Nunatsiavut Government, which is
actually recognized as self-government. In actual fact, the Nunatsiavut
Government has accused this provincial government of actually enacting changes
without consultation and actually being in violation of the Land Claims
Agreement.
It's
quite sad, too, you know, I don't have the ability to spend $11.5 million on
paving in my own district. Maybe if I did, I would be sitting in the House and I
would be talking over everybody who's trying to speak.
In my
district, in actual fact, there's –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
In my district, we're looking
at another budget, and we actually have trouble getting food into our
communities. We have trouble actually travelling in and out of our communities.
If this was anywhere else in the province, I don't think this would have
happened.
First
off, I don't think that they would have taken away marine services for
transportation of food, building materials, all our community needs, while a
Member of government was sitting and representing our district. That's really
unheard of. So what kind of consideration was given to my district? None. None.
So we're asking for it to be taken back.
One of
the things that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation that was talked about:
genocide. Not cultural genocide, genocide. Since Canada was actually
established, we looked at residential schools. But I have to say, Speaker,
where's the residential schools that existed? Are they on the Island? No, they
weren't on the Island. So everybody is talking about reconciliation and
Indigenous groups now, putting it all in one big pot and talking about it over
and over again.
But the
problem in my district, where we have Innu and Inuit that were seriously harmed
and actually have suffered real intergenerational trauma – has suffered real
intergenerational trauma. What is intergenerational trauma? It's trauma that
actually is year after year, generation after generation. And what's happening
is there's never been any help for the people in my district. Yet, we were
blamed.
When
those videos came out from Davis Inlet, that was really something that was taken
and, basically, they just blamed the Innu. But no one really talked about the
harm that was done to the Innu. That, in actual fact, it created so much harm
that they were struggling. They were struggling as youth, as parents, as
grandparents. They were all impacted: same thing with the Inuit.
I gave a
Member's statement just recently on Boas Jararuse. As a young man with a young
family, he was forced to resettle, relocate, from Hebron. They were collected in
the church, the Moravian Church. I call him Uncle Boas out of respect. Uncle
Boas always talked about the fact that they did it in the church because they
knew that the people, the Inuit, wouldn't speak out against this decision.
They
were relocated; sometimes families were broken up. It's so important to
understand that it's not just the residential schools that harmed the Inuit and
the Innu of my district; it's basically the forced relocation with the Innu.
They were put on an island in Davis Inlet. That was one of the strategies there,
was to keep them from going off on the land.
There
are so many different ways that the people have been harmed, but no one really
wants to talk about that any more. In actual fact, the phrase intergenerational
trauma has been used so much, people are tired of it. They're sick and tired of
hearing about intergenerational trauma. But the biggest problem is this
government has not done anything other than superficial, pretentious things.
Now,
there's really value in symbolism. I understand that and also there's value in
re-educating people about the harms that were done. But, at the end of the day,
people can't eat murals that cost a lot of money to actually put in the House of
Assembly. People can't eat murals. Statues: statues are not going to help you
feed your children and heat your house. How can we get out of intergenerational
trauma when this Liberal government continues to do these things without
actually addressing real change?
It was
this government that took away the freight boat and now has added burden of the
trucking. If that was anywhere else on the Island, if that was on the Island, it
wouldn't be heard of. It wouldn't be tolerated.
Do you
know something? For example, me, I'm here, as the MHA, and I have to tell you I
really don't like being the MHA in this House of Assembly. I don't really like
actually a lot of things that I see. I really don't.
Do you
know something? I understand why people write books after they retire from
politics, because, in actual fact, I don't really know how to say something
without getting kicked out of House, if I were to speak the real truth.
But, in
actual fact, until real change comes to the Innu and the Inuit of Northern
Labrador, this government will actually have blood on their hands because our
people will continue to die.
I
watched somebody die on a video. I watched it on a video. Me and a fellow MHA
watched it. It was somebody who was harmed through intergenerational trauma, had
fallen into addictions. And to slowly watch that person die in this day and age,
in this year – I watched it. That is the consequence of inaction. That's that
the consequence of the superficial, pretentious garbage that comes out of the
mouth of some of the Members who are supposed to be looking after the Indigenous
people.
Who are
the Indigenous people? Well, I can take you into my communities, if any one of
the ministers actually bothered to go anywhere else than Nain and fly in on the
morning flight and get out on the afternoon flight, if you ever, ever come up
into my district.
Now, I
tell you, there were a lot of Liberals that went into Makkovik that went over
trouting and fishing with my cousin who took them out. And, you know, when I was
campaigning one of the biggest complaints was that the only time they saw those
Liberal, whoever they were, because no one knew who they were, was when they got
off the plane and when they rushed back with their coolers full of trout and
salmon and fish to catch the flight out of Makkovik. People in Postville didn't
see them; people in Rigolet didn't see them; people in Hopedale didn't see them.
Yet, we
are continued to be harmed by these crazy prices that we have no control over by
the lack of services that we never, ever got.
One of
the fallacies in this province is that the Indigenous people of Northern
Labrador, the real Inuit, the real Innu who exist today that continue with their
traditions and their language, they actually destroyed the infrastructure that
was given to them, that basically undermined the services that were given to
them. That's why they're all up there sniffing gas. That's why they're all up
there killing themselves. That's been said. I've actually had it said to me many
times.
And do
you know something? Some of the people that killed themselves, suicide, were
relatives of mine: relatives of mine, friends of mine. People that died, people
that were murdered, the murdered women and Indigenous girls, whatever the fancy
acronym for that is, that actually cost the federal government so much money to
have the inquiry into. What's being done about that? Who was murdered? I can
tell you who was murdered. I've actually had relatives of mine murdered, friends
of mine. My brother's girlfriend was murdered. One of my best friend's mother
was murdered. We don't talk about that.
And I
think I mentioned in the House the one person that people know in this province
who they didn't know – everybody knew Dana Bradley. Everybody knew the name Dana
Bradley in this province. No one knew the name Henrietta Millek, but she was an
Inuit woman from Northern Labrador that was down here and was murdered – my
sister's roommate.
I have
got to tell you, it really impacts people. When I was growing up and when I went
to university, I actually sat down one day and I was trying to remember all of
the people I knew that committed suicide in the communities. I had to go through
all my fingers and I was going through the years and I missed people – people
that were close to me.
The
thing about it is until services and infrastructure are actually brought into
Northern Labrador – and do you know what really, really bothers me? One of the
things that would actually change life in Northern Labrador would be a road or
would be an extension in improvement of the airstrips that would improve
transportation, as I keep bringing up in my petitions.
Do you
know who was going to pay for most of that? Practically all of that
infrastructure would be paid by, by the federal government. And one of the
reasons why this province doesn't want to do that is because after it is built,
they would have to maintain it. That was said to me and my response is maintain
it like you do the rest of the roads in the province – like the rest of the
roads in the province. Really? Honestly?
That's
why we never ever got adequate – and for me, it's really hard. Honestly, most of
my days, looking back in physics when we did university physics, college
physics, it talks about inertia. And the definition of inertia is a body in
motion will remain in motion unless it is acted on by an outside force. A body
at rest will remain at rest unless it is acted on by an outside force.
And the
thing about it is if we had people in this House that was interested in the
greater good of everybody in the province and actually worked on that instead of
just their own agendas, instead of getting all the paving in their district or
actually just looked at oh, I can talk to Dr. – I can't say his name – I can
talk to the Minister of Health about my particular patient's issue and then I
can go back to him and that will boost me up. Oh, look, that will get me votes.
Instead of saying that this is a chronic issue that's experienced by many, many
people in the province that needs to be addressed for the greater good. You
might not get the attention, you might not get the recognition but, at the end
of the day, the people in the province would actually do a lot better.
Where's
that? That's not here. There are very, very few times that I actually see that
come forward. That's the biggest problem I have with this House of Assembly. The
self-serving rhetoric that goes on, it's ridiculous. Here I am, and I'm no
better. I'm just a little, old woman that came out of the North Coast. I mean,
really, honestly.
But you
know something? When I ran, I expected more. I expected better; I did. I had
some delusion. Honourable – this House isn't honourable. It's not filled with
honourable Members. We may not have criminal records, but I tell you some of the
action that we do have consequences that are far reaching. In my mind, it might
as well be criminal.
Actually
pretentious, superficial words, and nothingness that comes out of people's
mouth, really, is unacceptable. For me it's difficult to deal with that: health
care. How many people do I know in Northern Labrador – most of our patients that
have cancer, or had cancer, were diagnosed too late for treatment, even in 2022.
My sister-in-law – she had a family history – was misdiagnosed and even when she
was finally diagnosed, in actual fact, they failed to make the appointment for
her to go out for her treatment. They were waiting – my sister-in-law.
I tell
you something now; one of the reasons why it's hard to talk about is because she
died a week before my uncle, both of them with cancer. I have to say I think he
lived the extra week just to give us that little bit of comfort. Sometimes when
I'm dealing with factors on the North Coast and I'm trying to talk about stuff
that I knew that I was a party to, in actual fact, I have such trouble
remembering. Like I talked about – I won't say his name, but I talked about a
singer. This person that was so musically incline d and did so much for our
people. I said he died with TB, but in actual fact that was another younger man
who died with TB. He actually died with cancer. But I got to tell you, when you
lose so many people who mean so much to you, it impacts you, emotionally. And
the problem with actually travelling on the North Coast, and you get to know so
many people, you get to know who's impacted, who dies.
I may
have watched a woman die on video, but how many more do I know that died in
snowbanks? How many people do I know that was actually repeatedly, repeatedly
abandoned and neglected? With no supports, right? And the thing is, and I keep
saying now, are we not a part of this province? I know people roll their eyes.
And you should, you should just keep rolling them, buddy, because in actual fact
you're not helping to solve the problems of this province as far as I can see.
But at
the end of the day, we really do need help. It's not this superficial,
pretentious, hot air of nothingness that seems to come from the side of
government. I've got to tell you, everybody over here on this side is thinking
it. I may be the only one saying it, but I've got to tell you. One of the things
I always say is, if I say something that gets me kicked out, would I actually
stand up and apologize to get back in? I think I owe my people that I would
actually have to swallow my pride and apologize just so I could come back and
try to get some more done.
Anyway,
there are positive things going on in my district; our people are very
resilient. I just have to look out to our youth. Just recently, I got so many
calls from the Makkovik team trying to get out to the provincial regionals in
Goose Bay. They couldn't because of the weather and all the delays. We thought
they weren't going to get out. They finally got out and they took first place
overall. The young males did quite well actually; they got first place, second
place and third place. The girls did really well as well.
But
let's just talk about that now for a second. I want to bring up something now;
I've got 28 seconds left. To all the young girls that are growing up in this
province, I want to say to them: I don't want you just to get 66 cents when your
cousin who's a male, your brother who's a male gets a dollar. And that's
something that we need to actually fight for. We need to all work together, I
agree with that. But, at the end of the day, it's like solving problems; you
have to take action.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to start off by picking up on what the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands spoke
about, I'll just take a second to talk about the helmet legislation that did
come in a while ago. The minister, of course, she is from Grand Falls-Windsor.
She comes from a great family and she knows about the Side By Sides, quads, all
kinds of stuff out there. But make no mistake, we were under the impression that
it would be given some serious, serious consideration.
I would
like to know what that serious consideration was. In my opinion, it's a
government overreach. We stated our case and why enclosed Side By Sides with
seat belts, a helmet isn't warranted. The people of the province have spoken
and, like everything else, the detachment is there where government just doesn't
seem to be listening.
So we
are going to chalk that up to government overreach, in my opinion. It's too bad
because all of these people have bought $30,000, $35,000 vehicles and now have
to wear a helmet. If they had known this beforehand, they wouldn't have bought
the vehicle. Plain and simple. Because they feel as though they can't enjoy
their drive right now or their Sunday drive with their family and that's a
shame.
But,
again, it's just another example of a detachment from the people that government
are supposed to represent. Unfortunately, that's what we are left with.
I am
going to take a moment and talk about the people of Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans and thank them very much for putting their faith in me twice. The first
time there was no doubt it was blind faith. The second time, I would like to
think that I proved myself in some way and I thank them all for re-electing me.
We've
got some great things happening in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. One thing we
have happening is innovation. We have the only aquamation cremation system east
of Montreal, which is a big deal. My good friend, Mike Goodyear, who is also a
captain at the fire department in Grand Falls-Windsor, he brought in this
system. It's very clean for the environment – very environmentally friendly.
There's no cremation. What it does is it's an aquamation system, which does the
same thing as cremation but in a much more efficient manner and it's very
environmental friendly.
The guy
has been booked up forever. People like it. And I just want to tip my hat off to
him for taking a chance – getting that innovation to Grand Falls-Windsor. People
from all around the province now are checking this out and he deserves accolades
for that.
The
salmon season, of course, is coming up in the Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans
District and the Exploits River is one of the greatest rivers in all of Canada
for salmon fishing. So we're looking forward to seeing the anglers out there in
due time. I know that they enjoy themselves out there and we enjoy having them.
Of
course, if they're looking for a place to stay, Riverfront Chalets. My friend
Todd Parsons, he's expanding his venture up there. He's bringing in some pods
now that are fully equipped with bathrooms, the ceiling is all opened up to
glass, you can stargaze, a hot tub is going to be by each of these pods. It's
absolutely fantastic to see.
That's
the way this province needs to move in the right direction. He's running into a
little bit of trouble right now with the land he has. I'm hoping the Department
of Fisheries can fix him up because it's important.
I wish
Todd the best of luck. I hope that he doesn't run into any more difficulties,
because I'm hoping that government is going to help him instead of hinder him.
Sometimes common sense isn't that common – I think somebody said it a while ago.
Sometimes when we look at policy, the policy shouldn't always be black and white
when it comes from government. The policy should have room for common sense.
I'll just leave it at that.
Crown
lands, of course, is a huge one. I have a gentleman now out in Grand
Falls-Windsor who's had a cabin next to a lake since 1981. They're asking this
gentleman, on his own dime, to come out and move this cabin, and it's been there
since 1981. You look at that, that's over 40 years. Again, we need some common
sense to come in there. That cabin's been fine since 1981, no issues. That man
should be able to leave it there, absolutely.
Marathon
Gold: We are very, very pleased to have Marathon Gold up in the Buchans,
Millertown district. It's going to bring about 450 jobs. We're very excited, the
spinoffs are going to be great and it's going to bring some real economic
activity to my district. So we're very, very excited about that.
I want
to thank Marathon Gold and everybody that works there. Matt Manson, he's the
president and CEO and, of course, Tim Williams, he's the chief operating
officer. Myself and Tim get together just about every other week and chat.
They're very happy with the way things are going and so am I.
And just
one other thing. We're going to talk about Kellie Loder. Kellie Loder is from
Badger. We are very proud –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
– of Kellie Loder. I guess they are on
America's Got Talent tonight, is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Canada's Got Talent.
C. TIBBS:
Sorry, Canada's Got Talent tonight. So
that'll be for the semifinals tonight and we're going to be watching them. I
hope they give it their all, and I know that Kellie will. We look forward to
seeing them win the prize. They do great work. They are a songwriter, they are a
singer and they do great work. So thank you very much to Kellie Loder.
I want
to talk about the Buchans Highway for one moment. It's in rough shape. We have
logging trucks going back and forth. Sometimes 20 logging trucks a day going
back and forth out the Buchans Highway and it's ripping up this highway over and
over and over again. We've had loads spill out onto the highway, logs spill out.
It can be a dangerous situation sometimes. Now, with Marathon Gold going up
there, we're going to have a lot of mining trucks, big trucks. Nothing tears up
our highways like these big trucks.
We need
to ensure that the work is going to be done to keep them intact for the
residents that actually use the place. I know that the province is going to get
revenue upon revenue from these companies, whether it be the logging companies
or Marathon Gold, the revenue is going to come in, the royalties are going to
come in. I believe that we need to sit down and look at some sort of legislation
that's going to put in place money, a certain pot of money that can keep these
roads maintained, because it's not fair to the people that use them every single
day.
So I'm
hoping to sit down with government and work together to come up with a solution
that can work best for the people up around that area, and the people throughout
all the province here. If a new company comes in and they're going to be making
a lot of money and paying some of those revenues out to government, we need a
specific pot of money to ensure the safety of the roads for the residents that
have been there for 50, 60 or 70 years and continue to use those roads.
The
safety concerns up there, of course, the brush cutting; it needs to be done.
The
washouts alongside the Buchans Highway, if a car is coming down that highway at
80 kilometres an hour and it catches one of those washouts, well b'y they're
done. They are absolutely done. We've been asking – no roadwork has been done up
there since I've been elected. I really hope that the minister comes out with
something this year to ensure that the people of Buchans have a safe place to
drive and the people of Millertown and Millertown Junction have a safe place to
drive.
Cell
service, of course, is another one up there. We had a couple of people breakdown
up there, middle of the night, no cellphone service and walked for kilometres.
As a matter of fact, we had a school bus driver, no kids were on the bus,
thankfully, but the school bus broke down and that man had to walk six or seven
kilometres to get back to try to use a phone. In 2022, that's not acceptable.
God forbid, if that was the middle of winter and he had some kids on board. It
would have been pretty bad.
Sticking
with roads, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway going through Grand
Falls-Windsor has an issue. It has a terrible issue. It happens on both ends,
it's a divided highway, as most people know as they drive across the province.
We have an issue with people veering off before the divided highway into the
other lane. It mostly happens when people are going west; they switch over into
the eastbound lane. It happens on a weekly basis. We had two fatalities last
year. The fire department, who dealt with this, said it was one of the worst
accidents they've ever seen. So you can see how it takes its toll on a community
in general.
We need
something to be done out there. I am not an engineer, but I have been pleading
with the minister, the Premier, this government to do something. Ed Card, the
former mayor of Badger, called me last week. He said: Chris, I was driving back
to Badger and I missed him by an inch. Now you picture that. You're going
through Grand Falls-Windsor, which is a 90-kilometre-per-hour zone, most people
probably go 100; divided highway, it bends around, and you see a car barrelling
towards you at 90 or 100 kilometres per hour well.
This
isn't a one-time occurrence. This is happening over and over and over again, and
I want to go on record here today to express the urgency that something needs to
be done. I don't care if you've got to shut down that highway and turn it into a
40- or 50-kilometre zone until we figure out what has to be done. But somebody
is going to be hurt or killed once again. So I want to express that urgency.
I put up
a post on social media a while ago, encouraging people to come up with ideas,
people who have driven the roads for so long, and a couple of people chimed in.
I want to address this. A couple of people chimed in and said: People need to
pay better attention. I couldn't agree more. Absolutely, people need to pay
better attention. But how is that going to help you, or your family, or me or my
family, when we are driving perfectly at 90 kilometres per hour in our own lane
and we get hit head on?
My son
just got his licence. My son isn't allowed on the highway in Grand
Falls-Windsor. I forbid him. Because I am terrified that something like that is
going to happen again. To one of my constituents, not just my son. I am
absolutely terrified. So I am going on record today again, and I hope the
minister is listening, hope the Premier's listening – I hope somebody's
listening – because another fatality, and we're all going to remember this, May
3 – another fatality is going to happen if something is not done. And this will
be brought up again. So I'm begging and pleading for somebody to do something
before somebody else is killed.
Health
care: We spoke yesterday about Preston Pardy, and I am happy to announce that I
spoke with Preston just a little while ago and he is out of surgery and he is in
recovery up in Ottawa.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
I want to thank Preston for
speaking out for so many others. It's not an easy thing to do, but he spoke out,
he told the truth and he told his story. But it's so important for the people
that are coming behind him. Preston's 44 years old, he has two children, he has
a wife, he had a double bypass and of course he had to be sent up there.
Fortunately he got the surgery in time, he is resting and I cannot wait for
Preston to get back home and we're going to see him then.
In Grand
Falls-Windsor, we have an emergency room that is overloaded. It's unreal. Now,
we addressed this with the minister almost three weeks ago. The minister said,
of course, that they're trying to clear up the backlog within two weeks; not
even close. We are not even close to it being cleared up yet.
Part of
it, of course, is people waiting to get into long-term. The acute care centre is
overloaded with people that shouldn't be there and, of course, lack of family
doctors. So when somebody has a health issue, you can't blame them, they get
scared, they need to see a doctor and there are no doctors to see, right down to
the emergency room.
I want
to thank the staff, in the emergency room especially, all throughout Grand
Falls-Windsor medical facility, but especially the people in the ER that are
dealing with this. I know a lot of the nurses. I know a lot of the doctors. I
know a lot of the support staff down there, and my God are they fantastic
people. The work environment there is great. They're so upbeat. They work
together as a team; they do great work. They have to put up with a lot. The
strain on them is absolutely insurmountable. I'll leave it at that, but I just
want to thank them there for that, and we look forward to the long-term care
centre being opened, the ER backlog being cleared up so these people can
breathe, because right now they cannot and that's a shame.
You have
to ask yourself: What's going to happen to these people if they don't get a
little bit of easement, or a little bit of relief? They're going to go off to
another province as well, or they're going to go somewhere else. We're hoping to
keep them right there.
I'd like
to touch on the cost of living, of course, because that's what we're talking
about. When it comes to the budget, the budget is going to talk about the cost
of living. We need to ensure that it's brought up. Inundated, absolutely
inundated with people that cannot afford to live. It's amazing; it truly is. I'm
not going to stand here and point fingers at anybody, but it's amazing, and I
know 40 Members have to be hearing it. We've been saying it over and over again.
I think
the problem that we're starting to encounter is the normalization of the cost of
living in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's just it; that's the way it is.
It's like that across Canada. It's like that around the world. It's not normal
to choose between food and heat. It's normal at all. So stop normalizing this.
People are suffering and people need help.
We may
not have all the answers, but I hope that we can work together to have answers.
Now, government continues to ask us: Well, what would you do – what would you
do? Repeal the sugar tax, immediately. The sugar tax should be repealed
immediately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
You want to know what we can
do to alleviate some of the stress and the costs of people during some of the
worst times of their life – get rid of the sugar tax. It's simple, go back and
get rid of it. We don't need it. The people of the province don't need it.
They're paying enough as it is. Unfortunately what we're going to see, Mr.
Speaker, is an exodus. It's coming – it's coming.
My fear
is this, and we're starting to see it already. The rest of the provinces are
beginning to pick up after COVID much quicker than we are. They are. I talk to
other people from other provinces as well. Once people see this, the playing
field does not become level again, and we begin to lose people. And it will be a
mass exodus. You know, we talk about immigration, same thing. Who is going to
want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador in the state that we are?
If they
see the cost of fuel, if they see the roads that they're driving on, the health
care system, people are not going to want to come. If people do come, by God
when they get here they may not want to stay. So we need to have more of an
aggressive attack with the province to ensure that when people do come here,
they see it. Come Home Year – it's not Come Home Year summer 2022; it's Come
Home Year 2022.
We are
debilitated right now in this province. If you drive across this province, it's
absolutely embarrassing – the road signs – and they've been like it for years.
They may have been like it in this administration, I don't know. But I know
they've been like it for years. Not just broken, scratched up – these road signs
are cut in half, some of them. They are absolutely cut in half and strung out
alongside the road. I don't understand, I'm hoping that some of these road signs
can get fixed before people come to this province, because it's embarrassing
when you get off a plane and you look and you see: er Lake. Well, those signs
are cut in half, or Butter Pot Park. A lot of these signs need to be fixed, as
well as the roads of course.
I said
when we first started debating the Come Home Year 2022, cellphone service. If
we're going to be putting up these signs, and you know that Buchans highway, for
instance, you're going to be 45 minutes without cellphone service, let's put up
a sign there for the people that are coming here and let them know that for the
next 45 minutes, no cellphone service. Because if they break down and they take
out their cellphone to call for help and they don't get it, it's not going to be
good for them, of course. It's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth.
We want
people to come here; we want people to stay here. It's a beautiful province, it
truly is; it has the ability to be a beautiful province. We were on top once and
we will be on top again, and we want to ensure that we can show the rest of the
country and the rest of the world that as well.
Speaker,
the last couple of minutes, I'd like to talk about working people across this
province. I want to thank all of those people out there, man, woman and child,
that get up every single day and put it on the line. Whether you're working
part-time at 20 hours a week, 40, 50, 60 hours a week – and these people are
still struggling, even though they shouldn't have to. But they get up, they get
up, they put on their workboots, they put on their suit and tie, they put on
their apron and they go out and they give their all every single day, only to
come home to stay up at 2:30 in the morning to worry about a home heating bill.
That's
not right. That's not right. What's going to happen is Alberta is booming again;
the West is booming again. These people are going to get wise to it and they're
going to say my dollar can go a lot further in a place like that. That's exactly
how it's going to go, I guarantee you.
My last
minute and 45, Speaker, I want to talk about mental health once again. I can't
talk about it enough. I really can't. It deserves a full day of chatter, I
guarantee you. People in this province are feeling the crunch so bad right now.
Everybody is walking around with a big smile on their face, most days, but I
said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of people are dying on the inside.
They get
home at the end of the day and they face their bills, they face the kids who
want to do something or the kids want to go somewhere.
When I
was elected I came home from Alberta to work here. I left a job in Alberta that
I absolutely loved. I loved drilling for oil. I did it for 17 years. I would
encourage anybody to try drilling, offshore drilling whatever else, the oil
sector is something we should be proud of, but I loved my job. I took a huge
gamble to come home here and do what I do and, hopefully, get elected, and by
the grace of God, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans elected me.
The
reason why I came home, I never aspired to be a politician. I don't even
consider myself a politician now, I really don't. I wanted to come home because
I saw there was going to be no future for my children, for your children here at
home, for the children of the province to grow up. There was going to be no
future here. We see it already. We see people leaving all ready. I wanted to
ensure that future was going to be here for my kids and for everybody else's
kids out there. That's exactly what I'll continue to do.
I want
to thank, once again, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for electing
me. God bless you all. I look forward to representing you for the next so many
years to come.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
honoured to speak on the budget today and on this particular amendment to the
budget. I just wish to extend again my sincere appreciation to the people of the
District of Harbour Main for giving me this honour, for electing me to serve
them. It is truly a privilege to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at the budget, there are a few questions that come to mind
when I reflect and contemplate whether to support the budget or not. There are
several questions which I think are necessary to ask when we try to decide
whether we're going to support this budget.
First of
all, one of the questions that I think is important, it's probably the most
important question that has to be asked, that is: Did the government listen? I'm
going to address that in a few moments. But I am going to go through a few other
questions that I think are important to assess and to analyze in this decision
whether to support the budget or not.
The
second question: Is this the budget that our province needs? I'll repeat it. Is
this the budget that our province needs – I would even say – at this particular
time? I'm going to discuss that as we move along.
I think
the third question that needs to be asked: Is it the best that can be done? Is
this budget the best that could be done?
The
fourth question is important to ask: Does this budget drive jobs? Does it
encourage growth in our society and in our province?
Finally,
another question I think that needs to be asked: Does it inspire confidence?
Does it inspire confidence in the people of our province? Does it protect our
vulnerable populations?
I think
those are some of the questions that, for me, are important to consider in
whether we can support this budget and whether I can support this budget.
I'd like
to go back, first of all, to what happened with respect to the government's
five-point plan. That can be tied directly to my first question: Did the
government listen to the people of the province?
Well, I
think we just need to look at that five-point plan that was announced prior to
the budget coming out. I think you'll get your answer to that question whether
the government listened to the people. The answer to that question is, no, they
did not listen to the people.
What did
they do? Let's just reflect on what they did in that announcement with respect
to the high cost of living and the rising cost of living that the people of our
province are experiencing.
They
announced I believe it was approximately $22.2 million. There was an Income
Supplement, a Seniors' Benefit, an income support, electric vehicles, oil to
electricity transition, but, Speaker, that announcement and that response fell
short, in my respectful opinion. There were way too many people that were left
out with respect to that response.
We've
seen such a high rise in gas prices. Yes, we know that there was a 10 per cent
rise with respect to income support and Seniors' Benefit programs. That will
definitely not cover the significant rise in gas prices.
Let's
look at the electric vehicle funding piece. So we know that there was $1.9
million on electric vehicle infrastructure. By the way, that announcement I
think had been made last year by government, but nevertheless they announced
that again, $1.9 million. And then they also expanded the Electric Vehicle
Rebate Program.
Okay,
that's good, but I ask the Speaker, will those measures help the people of our
province? Is this what our people need right now? These measures, I would argue,
do not help the people struggling with the price of gas, who cannot afford –
they cannot afford new electric or hybrid vehicles. I mean, we know that, that's
a no-brainer; we know that. So these kind of announcements and responses, that
five-point plan, doesn't cut it. They were not listening, Mr. Speaker, they were
not.
Is this
a budget our province needs? I would again submit and argue that this is not the
type of budget that our province needs right now. We know that people are
struggling.
I was
talking to a gentleman earlier this morning on the phone from South River and it
is heartbreaking, Speaker. It is heartbreaking what people are having to endure.
He said to me things are getting worse and actually he went through exactly how
much he paid for furnace oil. He was so upset. He said he spent $300 worth of
oil on February 25.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
– and that gave him 48.2
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I need
to hear the Member speak.
Thank
you.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
This gentleman from South
River had spent $300 worth of oil on February 25; it gave him 48.2 gallons of
oil. On March 24, $300 worth of oil gave him 38.2 gallons; $300 worth of oil on
April 1 gave him 31 gallons of oil.
When we
discussed it today, he said basically he can't afford to live. Things are
getting worse. He said now, as of last Wednesday, it was I believe he said $1.67
a litre and now up to $1.93. So he said I don't know what we're going to do.
Everyone he's talking to he said they're in the same position. They cannot make
ends meet. They're making very difficult choices as to what to do, whether
they're going to be able to eat, or put money in their cars for gas. He said
forget about going to the grocery store. He said the price of groceries is gone
beyond.
He said
I go into a store with $100 for groceries, I'm lucky if I come out with two bags
– two bags. Then he also said about everyone trying to get you to eat healthy.
He said the people want to eat healthy, but he said forget about that. You can't
afford to eat healthy either.
So it's
very heartbreaking when you hear from seniors. He said things are just getting
worse, what are we going to do? I know that government has basically said their
hands are tied. Their hands are tied; they can't do anything about it, despite
almost 40 cent a litres of gas going to provincial tax. Yet, the provincial
government says it can't do anything about it.
But,
Speaker, I challenge the government. They can. They have options to take. They
can take real action, but they choose not to. It's about choices. It's about
priorities. Government is not choosing to help the people that are suffering
right now.
What can
they do? Well, let's look at it. We have proposed, and the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, our shadow minister for Finance, has repeatedly
made suggestions to be part of the solution. Let's implement the home heating
fuel rebate. That would offset the cost of home heating fuel. From what I
understand, our province, Newfoundland and Labrador, is one of only two
provinces in Canada that does not offer a rebate on the carbon tax, for example.
So we
see there are options. Delay the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage
tax – delay it. We need immediate, urgent relief. People need it now. This is a
serious situation. It is a crisis. We're hearing it every day from our
constituents and I am sure we all are hearing this same story. They are reaching
out for us to help.
In fact,
that gentleman I was talking to in South River today said what are we going to
do? I said I don't know what to tell you. I'm representing your interests; I'm
trying to get government to listen, as is our Opposition. He said, well maybe it
is time for us to have demonstrations and protests. That's what that man said to
me. He said, because if they're not listening – and what it makes me wonder is
do they even care. I mean, surely, they must care about what's happening to the
people in our province.
But
again, getting back to some of the solutions that we can propose and we have
proposed as an Opposition, ask the PUB to review the five cents per litre
charged on gas. That was implemented when Come By Chance stopped producing.
There's another suggestion, another way of approaching this.
Speaker,
I don't think anyone on the opposite side is listening to us. I really am
concerned with why there is no immediate action. When we look at the fuel prices
right now – and I've had a number of constituents trying to understand why they
are so high. We hear a lot of excuses from government, but we also have to be
fair and balanced. I believe that is important when we are trying to solve these
problems.
So I
have been asked the question: Well, why are our fuel process so high, especially
when Canada has plenty of crude oil? From what I understand and from what I've
learned one of the reasons – and I do recognize this because government does
raise this – there's no denying, yes, there is an increasing demand for oil
around the world. That's not in dispute and therefore the rising fuel prices.
There is a clear supply shortage on the market. So we'll acknowledge that.
That's true and that does affect the world crude oil prices.
What
else? Of course, we know the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. That's an important
factor as to why the fuel prices are so high. We'll acknowledge that. We look at
oil production and we look at the fact that Canada, for example, is the fourth
in terms of proven oil reserves in the world and Russia is eighth. So oil
production, however, Russia is the second worldwide. It produces, I believe it's
9.9 million barrels a day. Canada is fourth with respect to oil production.
It's a
complicated equation, which does involve global markets. I get it, there are no
easy solutions regarding prices at the pumps. But Speaker, that can't be used as
excuses. We cannot allow government to deflect and to use that as the reason for
inaction.
Government has opportunity here, Speaker. They have opportunity with respect to
implementing the home heating fuel rebate. They have opportunity to ask the PUB
to review the five cents per litre that's charged on gas. They have the
opportunity to delay the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. The
carbon tax – they had opportunity there, but they're not listening. So again,
when I come back to whether I can support this budget, I definitely vehemently
oppose and object to this budget, particularly at this time.
Speaker,
I need to also look at a couple of other things with respect to the price
increases that people are experiencing. When we look at the gas, when we look at
the groceries, when we look at all of these – the consumer price index has
risen, and we know that that's the case as well. But when we see price increases
in essentials – these are essentials that people need to live; these are not
luxuries, Speaker – this impacts everyone. It doesn't only impact seniors, but
it really is devastating for seniors and low- and fixed-income individuals.
Devastating when we see these price increases in essentials.
But it
also affects the working and middle class. And we are all hearing this every
day. When I hear from people in my district say, well, why aren't you doing
anything about it, I think sometimes they don't understand that I'm not in
government; I'm not in a position to implement the needed policies that should
take place. But when I hear seniors calling, like this senior from South River,
saying he's struggling to make ends meet, to buy food, to heat his home, his
medications – him and his wife, their medications are expensive, and then
driving the car.
They're
choosing between which necessity they will do without. That is what's happening
to the people in our province. Right now it's happening and I don't know what's
going to happen, what's going to give here. Because if we do not do something
here to change this – and I call upon government, I call upon the Minister of
Finance to amend this budget. They have the power. They're hearing from us.
The
Official Opposition represents approximately 30 per cent of the population.
You're hearing from us; you have to listen. You have to listen to what we're
saying. We're bringing you the concerns of the people that we represent and that
all of us represent. So it's up to you to make the necessary amendments. And
that's going to require adaptability. That's going to require flexibility on
your part. That's going to require listening. And if you do not listen to the
people that you serve, the government will lose any of its really moral
authority to govern, in my view.
So,
Speaker, the issue with respect to the budget, when I hear the government saying
that there are no taxes and fees will increase, that's not true. We saw the
carbon tax increase in 2022. We saw the regressive sugar tax introduced in
September. We're seeing these things. We're seeing the cost of fuel going up,
home heating fuel and diesel. Necessities are becoming less affordable. It's not
good enough. We implore government to listen to the people it represents.
So,
Speaker, at this point in time I would like to move a subamendment, seconded by
the Member for Exploits: That the amendment that was previously presented, the
non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end “thereof” to
a comma, and also by adding immediately thereafter the following words: “and
that this House also faults the government for its failure to demand or deliver
fair financial transfers for Newfoundland and Labrador from the Government of
Canada.”
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
This
House will recess and we will take a look at the subamendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
subamendment that was presented by the Member for Harbour Main is deemed to be
in order.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you very much,
Speaker.
On this
subamendment, I'm going to talk about health care, specifically not only in our
province, but as well in the District of Harbour Main. I also want to talk about
the subamendment that was introduced, just by way of explaining the clause: “…
this House also faults the government for its failure to demand or deliver fair
financial transfers for Newfoundland and Labrador from the Government of
Canada.” I'm going to talk about that, as well, during my 20-minute speech.
First of
all, health care. We know that health care – and I don't even know if want to
call it health care because it's not really health care, it's the system. Let's
just call it the system. The system is broken. The system in our province is
very concerning. We're at a crisis. I mean beyond crisis, really. When we look
at the shortage of doctors we're at 100,000 doctors throughout the province,
shortage of nurses, all of that is contributing to, I would say we can call it
substandard care in our province.
We know
from the problems out in Central Newfoundland, for example – and my colleagues
have raised this many times – several communities in the region are losing their
doctors by the end of June. Harbour Main, even in my district, we're losing a
doctor in South River at the end of June.
So we're
all inundated with calls from our constituents, from concerned patients about
the fact that they don't have doctors. Let's look at where this is and the
picture to try to understand what's happened. We know there's been seven years
of this government. They've had opportunity. This crisis didn't just happen
overnight. We know that. That is fact. There was warning, there was notice, but
now we see some sort of attempt at action to deal with these problems. But what
concerns me is why wasn't there some preventative measures put in place years
ago?
Everyone
knew this was coming. I've talked to family doctors in my district who said they
knew that this was coming, and it was anticipated. Let's look at what the
president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has stated, Dr.
Susan MacDonald. She, basically, in her advocacy with this government and
to try to bring attention to this problem, has referred to the fact that we are
losing doctors. Yes, there are doctors retiring. What else is very important is
that we're seeing a lot of burnout, we're seeing a lot of frustration and we're
seeing doctors that are just not prepared to work under the conditions.
The lack of work-family balance is important and is a factor as well.
Virtual
care: Dr. MacDonald and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has
pointed to this and have raised concerns about virtual care. Family doctors
remaining are being told to do virtual care or virtual emergency rooms. But her
concern and the NLMA's concern is that they're going to be pulled from their own
family practice and their own patients. How is that helping the situation?
The
whole health care system is in dire straits, we all know that. The president of
NLMA has cited a number of concerns. She is saying that many rural health care
centres can no longer deliver the sustainable services because, as she called
it, the physician workforce is destabilized. Yes, as I mentioned, the situation
in Central is probably the worst but she used, I think, an important analogy to
describe the situation of physicians trying to plug a dam about to burst. She
said that is a dangerous situation, not only for the physician but also for the
patient.
She has
repeatedly, as has the Official Opposition, called on government to step in with
a plan before it is too late. The alarm bells have been ringing but they have
been falling on deaf ears of this government.
That
brings me back to what I spoke to earlier, before I introduced this
subamendment, the listening part. Government has to start listening. It has to
engage more with the Opposition, with the communities, with these associations
and with the NLMA. Well, we hear that they are meeting with them sometime next
week. Hello, next week? This has been seven years in the making here. Meeting
with them next wee – Too little, too late.
So what
is the key to improving health care, Speaker? I mean, there are no easy
solutions, I know that. We are all aware of that. It is not an easy task and we
understand that too. We're not suggesting that it is an easy task. But I think
from what I've heard and from what our Opposition Members have heard from the
people that we represent is they need to involve front-line stakeholders. They
need to listen to people with lived experiences. They need to listen to people
who have first-hand knowledge, and they haven't been doing that.
We
wonder about the Minister of Health. I would argue that, quite frankly, he's
missed the boat entirely. His priorities have been disconnected – disconnected
from the reality, which is seen on the ground by our front-line workers. The
minister's attention, in my assessment and analysis of what's happening, is on
the boardrooms in our health care system, but not on the staff. Not on the
people on the front lines. Not with the nurses and with the doctors. That is a
serious misstep and a serious error in judgment.
When we
look at other organizations, the Registered Nurses' Union, Speaker, what did
they have to say about the budget? They said: 2022 budget does nothing to help
the retention and recruitment crisis in our health care system. These are not my
words. The Nurses' Union have set out the concerns. So I ask you, what has this
government done to address the understaffing in our health care system for the
past seven years? I mean, why are we here now?
The
minister, in Question Period, responds often with, well, we have the Health
Accord, as that being the solution. There are good things in the Health Accord,
there's no question about it. I've spoken to physicians, I've spoken to
specialists who haven't even had the chance to read the Health Accord because
they're so busy trying to care for their patients in this overburdened system
that we have. So it's not a solution for today – it is not a solution for today.
A 10-year plan is not a reason to ignore the issues today. So, Speaker, there's
no relief in this budget in my view to address this critical situation with
respect to health care.
So let's
look at the health transfers. Increased health transfers were promised by the
federal government. They were promised to increase money to this province for
health care spending in the budget. Did that happen? No, Speaker. The Premier
failed in getting any increase with the Liberal federal government.
The
Health Accord called for additional health care investments by Ottawa, even that
health care plan, which is a good plan in principle, but it called for
additional health care investments by Ottawa, and it's needed. Why is it needed?
To improve wait times, to give nurses and doctors some relief; to make sure
everyone has a family doctor. Yet, seven years in government – the Minister of
Health has had seven years, this crisis didn't happen overnight. There's no
surprise here. We saw it coming. It was seen, we knew it. We had knowledge,
prior knowledge. Yet, now we have people that are really suffering.
Speaker,
I look to the surgery backlog, for example. I believe the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association has said it's approximately 7,000 surgeries are
wait-listed. That's in Metro St. John's area alone: 7,000 surgeries.
We have
over 200 of those delayed surgeries involve cancer treatment, Speaker. Now, we
all know cancer has touched us all. I'm sure everyone here, cancer has touched
us all. Most of us have been impacted by cancer, the lives of loved ones,
family, friends, colleagues – we all have personal experiences about cancer. But
when we are seeing that there are delays in diagnosis, in treatment, in
surgeries, can you even imagine? I can't even imagine what that must be. It must
be very frightening when you are diagnosed with cancer and your surgery is being
delayed.
We know
that over 200 – I believe that's the latest stat that we have – delayed
surgeries involve cancer treatment. That experience must be just unimaginable,
how much stress and how frustrating and scary that must be. Their lives are at
risk.
So what
happens here? We need to see government engaging more. We need to see, for
example, immediate and long-term consequences, we know. We're seeing all these
disruptions in the health care system now, like the delayed surgeries, like the
wait-lists of surgeries. We need to see that government is diligent, that they
will anticipate, because they haven't done it before. But they need to start
anticipating and preparing, like, for example, people that need to have
treatment with chemotherapy, because if they're having their surgeries delayed,
well what does that mean? That means if their surgeries are being delayed,
perhaps they may have tumours in their body and if their surgeries are being
postponed, it's possible that the cancer is advancing.
So what
is government doing to anticipate and prepare for these contingencies because,
surely, that's happening? If you have 6,800 surgeries wait-listed, 200 of those
delayed surgeries involve cancer patients: is there a plan? What's happening to
help these people?
It's
very interesting that this week is Mental Health Week. I wonder how patients and
families were affected when they were told they had cancer but their surgery was
being cancelled or postponed. How must they be feeling? We can only imagine the
emotional and the mental health consequences of that for them.
We know,
Speaker, as well, the current estimate with respect to Canadians is that 45 per
cent of Canadians are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime: 45
per cent. We cannot ignore this fact.
So what
we need to do, Speaker, is we need to work together: government, non-government,
organizations, health care authorities, nurses' unions, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association, we need to work together to make things better.
But I
must say when I look at what is happening with Newfoundland, within our
confederation, it is very concerning. We know that Newfoundland and Labrador has
the highest taxes in the country. So we know that means it keeps consumers from
spending. It keeps business from hiring. It keeps young people from staying
here. The more people we lose, the less transfers we receive.
So that
brings me to the subamendment. Based on the per capita formulas that exist now,
the health care transfers and the equalization is not equitable and it is not
fair to Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So why is that? What does
that mean? Because I have looked at it and we look at it in our Opposition, the
federal funding programs, they're unfair. It is an unfair distribution of funds.
We need to make these transfer payments fair and equitable. The health and
social transfers should be based on need, not population.
But you
might say, well, why should we do that? Are we asking Ottawa for something, you
know, for a hand up?
No,
we're not asking the federal government for a hand up or a handout. We're asking
to be treated fairly in this Confederation that we joined in 1949. And that's
not happening. If we were treated fairly, Speaker, within this Confederation, we
would be in the same fiscal position, perhaps, that provinces like Quebec and
Nova Scotia are in. They receive federal transfers, which are denied to us, and
they are achieving fiscal balances.
So,
Speaker, I look at Quebec, for example, $3 billion surplus. They get $13
billion, the latest data that I have, in equalization. What does Newfoundland
and Labrador get? Zero. The perverse rules of equalization have to be changed.
They have to be addressed. And who is advocating for us on this? Who is
advocating for fairness on our behalf in Ottawa? Who is seeking for this
inequity to be remedied?
We have
a provincial Liberal government that's silent on this. We have a provincial
Liberal government, it bears repeating –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
– that are silent on
this. The federal government has failed to increase the amount of money given to
this province for health care spending in the budget. They have failed to do
that. We are entitled to that, as part of this Confederation. We are supposed to
be equal partners in Confederation in this country. The federal government
promised increases to health transfers, specifically to mental health – no. Did
our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador secure an agreement from
the Trudeau government for this year's budget? No.
So,
Speaker, I am very concerned about these issues when it comes to our rightful
place in this Confederation and how we continue to lack leadership on the part
of our Liberal provincial government to advocate for our rights to be enforced.
Speaker,
finally in cluing up, I do want to say that collaboration is the key here. It's
a nice word, but you know what it is? It's a two-way street. It requires both
sides engaging, both sides listening. It's time for the government, though, to
hear the people say what they need. They're not listening. The people are
desperate to be heard.
The
people, though, of Newfoundland and Labrador are savvy. They are savvy. Then,
when the government says they're doing all that they can do, guess what? People
see through that. They know what's going on. They see the inadequacies in this
budget. It needs to be amended, but they're not going to do it, Speaker. This
needs to be amended. The people of this province are hurting.
The
Minister of Finance claimed their focus is always on relentless pursuit of
better, so I challenge the Minister of Finance, prove it. This budget doesn't
meet the needs of the people. It needs to be adapted, it needs to be changed and
it needs to be improved to meet the needs of the people you serve, and we all
serve.
So show
flexibility. Show a flexible approach. Show that you're adaptable. Bend your
response. Meet the needs of the people that you serve. Because if you don't your
own respectability, your own legitimacy will really be questioned in terms of
how the people of this province see you.
So I
would ask, with respect to this, that this is the hallmark of democracy here in
the House of Assembly, and we have to engage in listening to one another.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Terra Nova.
S. CROCKER:
Oh my God!
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to see the Minister of Tourism is so excited to hear me speak again. He'll
listen just as intently as he always does.
Always
an honour to stand in this House and represent the people of the District of
Terra Nova and certainly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously,
this budget and the time we're at in this province is a very hard time for
everyone, and it's important for people to get up and speak to the budget.
Something I'm a little sad to say that government hasn't got up and done. They
haven't spoke to it whatsoever, so it's a bit shocking –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Oh good, but we presented a
motion the other day for an emergency debate that got shut down because there
was going to be lots of debate in the budget, and we haven't heard a peep, so
you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, it needs to be one way or
the other.
Health
care: Health care is such a huge issue for everyone in this province. We are
overwhelmed with calls on a daily basis, and I'm sure everyone is. I have zero
doubt that everyone in this House of Assembly is dealing with not just
constituents and family and friends from their own ridings, but they're hearing
from people whenever they're out to the grocery stores. When I'm here in St.
John's and go somewhere, I've been approached several times by people talking
about health care. It's a state; it really is.
I just
recently learned Category B hospitals in Central are paying double the going
rate now – double the going rate – in order to get doctors to go out there for a
24-hour period. So while the Minister of Health seems to think he's playing this
elaborate game of chess, the reality of it is he's playing Jenga. He's taking a
block from the bottom and he's putting it on top, and he's hoping that it's not
going to topple over. But guess what? That's right where we are. It's about to
topple and when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, it's gonna catch up.
And that
is exactly what is happening in our health care. There are no solutions. If you
think for a second that the solutions are right here right in front of us,
absolutely not. And the sad part, as the Member for Harbour Main just elaborated
very eloquently I might add, is that the current minister has had seven years –
seven years – and by his own admission he understood the problems before he got
involved in politics – seven years as a sitting minister. The Premier said he
only ran because of the problems with health care. It was one of the
cornerstones of his campaign, one of the reasons he got involved: because he
knew the problems with our health care system.
I'll
tell you what, my time in the military, I used to jump out of airplanes. That
don't mean I know how to fly them. And they certainly don't know how to run
health care, I can tell you that right now. Because we're in shambles.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
We need to understand the
people's needs. I've got to go back. The Member for Harbour Main, she talked
very eloquently when she said that they haven't talked to the nurses or the
doctors. But you know what the sad thing is? They don't have to talk to them.
Turn on VOCM and listen to the ads they're running. You can listen to what the
NLMA is saying and the Nurses' Union without even picking up a phone or writing
a letter. They're screaming for help. Overworked, overburdened, understaffed,
unaware of what's going on, no plan – all things they've said.
Quotes
from people working in the medical situation: Do you think you could pick up
another shift this weekend because there's nobody to cover? We're desperate. Oh
no, we are accepting another diversion today. Quotes from medical people to
patients: I know you're frustrated you had to drive three hours and then wait
for six more, but we're doing our best.
These
quotes are very common, not just in rural Newfoundland, but all throughout the
province. The reality of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador is that the
health care system on the Avalon and Eastern Health and rural Newfoundland are
incredibly different. Nobody can tell me for a second that health care in
Labrador or the Northern Peninsula, or the West Coast or Central is the same.
You heard me ask a question today: Imagine an individual who was told by this
minister when we reached out and said we have a patient – and we reached out he
can't get a family. He needs to apply to the collaborative care clinic in
Eastern. Here's the phone number. He calls them. This guy was born in
Clarenville, Eastern Health. His family physician, Clarenville, Eastern Health.
Under the care of specialists in St. John's, Eastern Health. Calls the number
for the collaborative clinic – sorry, Sir, you live in Charlottetown, nothing we
can do for you. How does that make sense?
This
phone call happened not one day, not two days, not one week, not two weeks, but
weeks after this government announced we're going to one health care authority.
What's the sense of one health care authority if you don't know how you're going
to look after it all? What's the sense if you're going to turn away a patient
based on where he lives?
Now, I
can tell you the people in Charlottetown are a heck of a lot closer to
Clarenville than they are to Gander. Very simple. That's not tough geography.
It's no different than patients in Clarenville getting diverted to Carbonear.
It's no different than an ambulance – I had constituents in an accident last
week. Instead of sending them to the Health Sciences, 12 kilometres east of
Whitbourne, they sent them to Placentia. Serious bone injuries, it makes no
sense. You don't have to have a medical degree or a business degree or any other
kind of a degree to understand that our health care system is not falling. It
has fallen apart. You also don't have to have much time in this House of
Assembly to understand that it's happened on their watch.
Now, the
Premier sits over here and when you talk about health care he quickly says I've
only been here two years. Five minutes later, he says but a $500-million debt
you guys left us. You can't have it both ways, though. It might be true, but you
cannot have it both ways and that's pretty simple. It's another excuse. The
truth of it is you guys have failed to bring it across the finish line. You
promised – as a matter of fact, from the EY report: “We take EY's
recommendations seriously and it is our full intention to action them all
including strengthening project governance and expanding oversight which we
expect to have completed by the end of May.
“Schedule pressures and expected cost increases on the Muskrat Falls Project
concern us all. The project is now being reforecast for cost and schedule….
“EY will
assess the reasonableness of the revised forecast and will then present us with
a final report following their review.” We will ensure the project is managed
effectively within budget and on time.
The hon.
Minister of Natural Resources, 2016, April 12. They were going to finish in
2017. Guess what? It's 2022.
S. CROCKER:
It's a good investment.
L. PARROTT:
Hear that? The Minister of
Tourism is saying it's a good investment. I'm glad to hear him say that. As I
talk about Muskrat Falls, he is saying it is a good investment. I'm glad to hear
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
It is about time someone on
that side recognized it.
Our
health care system, right now, has become unsustainable. If you don't believe
that, talk to a nurse or talk to a doctor –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
But I will give you one
better. Just for one second forget about the nurses, forget about the doctors
and imagine you are a patient. Imagine you have cancer. Imagine you have an
issue with your heart. Imagine you have had a stroke. You know what the Premier
says?
He's
going to reimagine. I challenge him to imagine what is going on with those
people. As those people sit at home and try to understand what their future
holds, nothing is changing. We are taking a block from the bottom, we're putting
it on top and we're hoping that it is not going to topple over. It is a sad
state when that is how we manage our health care. The people of this province
deserve much, much better.
If you
live in rural Newfoundland right now and you think about what it is going to
cost you as a cancer – any kind of a specialty, really. Any specialty service
that you have to go to, you're either going to the West Coast or to the Avalon,
mostly to the Avalon. Think about the cost incurred. Now we can talk about the
MTAP and all the different programs that are out there to help people, but the
reality of it is: (a) people do not understand a lot of those programs, the
educational material is not out there for people to know that they even qualify
for them; and (b) we have patients every single day who are not able to avail of
services because they can't afford to travel, because of the cost of gas because
of the cost of hotels, because of the cost of fuels.
Then, on
top of that, add the fact that they could travel to St. John's, as an example,
and they get here and an appointment is cancelled. Just imagine leaving the
Northern Peninsula to come down here or Labrador, getting on a flight to come
out here and being told, sorry, your appointment has been cancelled. We're going
to reschedule you at the earliest convenience. Well, that individual may have
waited two years in order just to get an appointment and now they have to wait
another very extended long period of time.
We have
200 cancer patients awaiting surgery? I'm willing to bet you we have Members in
this House that have serious ailments that have not only had to wait but are
waiting for treatment. Now, nobody in this House deserves any special treatment,
that I can guarantee you, but the men and women we represent, they deserve
special treatment. They deserve much better than we are giving them and there is
no question about that.
We have
a Health Minister and a Premier who says, we're on it. The Health Minister talks
all the time about the amount of family doctors we have in this province. We
have more than our share of family doctors, 600-and-something family doctors.
We've got every family doctor that we need. If that's the case, why is it 20 per
cent of the population doesn't have a family doctor?
If the
collaborative care clinics are the solution, why is it we're turning people
away? None of it makes sense. It doesn't make any sense. So I believe that the
minister, much like regionalization, doesn't have a plan. He's going through a
process. He's throwing darts at the wall, playing darts with people's lives
hoping that it works out okay, and it's simply not good enough.
Seven
years sitting as a Minister of the Crown, representing one entity, the same
position, for us to be in the position we're in right now, I would say if he
could look anyone in this House and say that our health care system is better
today than it was seven years ago when he started, then maybe, maybe nobody
would be talking the way they are. But I can guarantee you, our health system is
far worse today than it was seven years ago, far worse. As a matter of fact,
when he sat as the president of the NLMA, if you go back and listen to the
things he said, all of those things are non-existent all of a sudden. How does
that make sense? How can you go from A to B?
One of
the Members talked here earlier about how people get in the government and they
change. Absolutely right. Probably a good example; probably one of the best
examples. You're talking about a guy who went from being the president of the
NLMA and a national president, to coming in here and turning his back on the
very people he represented. As a matter of fact, a couple of days ago when the
NLMA came out talking about it, he said he responded to them with an email. He
shouldn't have to respond to them. He should be the one going to them. It should
be his initiatives that are keeping our health care system afloat. He shouldn't
be waiting to get information from the NLMA or from any other entity in our
health care system.
Our
health care system is going to fall down around him and it's going to go
unnoticed. It's sad. Our Premier had the opportunity to change it. He said he
knew the problems when he got here, and when he got here two years ago, he put
the exact same individual back in the same seat. He had the opportunity to
change it and he failed, simple.
When I
talk to people throughout my district and throughout the entire province, we
talk about the ability to access services; mental health is one of the biggest
things that comes to light all the time. It is incredible how many people cannot
access mental health and it's okay to say. We've heard the minister talk about
the robust program and how people are getting in to get mental health consults,
first appointment. Guess what happens after that? Two-year waiting lists, maybe
longer. Guess what happens in that period of time? Your mental health
deteriorates exponentially.
Now,
let's go back two years. Two years ago we had a mental health crisis. Two years
ago we had a mental health crisis – pre-COVID. Now add COVID into the mix. Take
a bunch of senior citizens, lock them into houses by themselves; take a bunch of
kids, lock them at home and put them on a video game, put them on a computer to
try and go to school, and tell me what you expect is going to happen to their
mental health.
Our
mental health issues have exploded and there has been nothing done, not a thing.
It is not just seniors and it is not just young children. But I can tell you I
talked to a family physician in my district last week and they have kids – and I
have heard from other Members in my caucus – lined up to see them because of
mental health issues. And they are serious and they are real.
I'll
tell you something else. Don't take my word for it, go to one of your schools
and talk to a guidance counsellor, talk to the social workers at the school and
ask what they have to say. I can tell you what they have to say. They are going
to tell you we are failing our kids. We are failing them. Everyone in this
House. Those children are supposed to be our future, and from a mental health
aspect and what has happened over the last two years, we have done nothing. Yet,
the minister seems to say everything is A-okay. Everything in not A-okay.
Now,
forget COVID – forget COVID. Go to the financial state we are in. Now you tell
me how those kids feel when they go home and mom and dad are fighting because
they don't have enough money to put food on the table. You tell me how those
kids feel when mom and dad say: I can't put you in hockey this year. I don't
have the money to do it. Dad has been laid off. I don't have work. You tell me
how those kids feel when someone can't afford to get gas to go drive a kid
across the Island to play in a tournament. This is what's happening. Yet,
everything is okay.
Between
mental health, between our regular health care system and our financial
situation, I can tell you what, it's seven years – there are not many new faces
over there, there may be a new premier – that's three terms, seven years:
nothing done.
Balance
the budget in 2021; promised in '16, '17, '18, '19, now it's '25-'26. Do you
know what? Everybody in this House can talk about Muskrat Falls, but Muskrat
Falls was there in '16 when the promise was made. It was there in '17. It was
there in '18 and it was there in '19. Nothing has changed.
The only
that has changed is the influx of money that this government has gotten because
of COVID relief. They have actually won the lotto and they still couldn't get it
right. Prior to the COVID relief, in March of 2020, the previous premier wrote a
letter to the prime minister and said we are on the very crisis of collapse. We
are on the cusp of collapse here in this province, prior to COVID.
So I
have sat here and listened to COVID as the main excuse. It's not COVID. We were
there long before COVID. People have short memories.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
If you're embarrassed about
something maybe you should get up and say it there, Minister. Is it an
embarrassment over failure or is it an embarrassment for something I'm saying?
At the end of the day, while you're signing your greeting cards, if you are
embarrassed by what I am saying, perhaps you should get up and say it to me. I
didn't think so.
Our
health care system has fallen apart and they have watched it. Yes, I agree 100
per cent with the Minister of Finance: it's absolutely embarrassing. One hundred
per cent embarrassing. Because do you know why? The people that put us here
deserve better. The people in this room deserve better. All I hear is: in
Canada, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba. We are worried about –
E. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
I hear the Minister of
Transportation talking about leadership over there. I know you guys lack
leadership and you're excited to see some. You will at some point, no doubt.
E. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Yeah, I know you will.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
You don't know what the
questions are, so certainly –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
I'm speaking.
SPEAKER:
I ask for order from both
sides, not just you. I speak to all Members.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
your protection.
Mr.
Speaker, my point is quite simple. At the end of the day, as the health care
crumbles, as people can't afford to live anymore, we sit back and we watch. We
come in here and we present a budget that does nothing for anyone. It does
nothing for anyone. Now, I'll agree that parts of it will help seniors,
marginally; it will help certain aspects of the population, marginally. But, at
the end of the day, there are too many missed opportunities.
The
reality of it is we should be looking to delay the sugar tax. We should be
looking for ways to reduce carbon tax, tax on gas and find ways to address the
cost of living. We should be looking for home heat rebates. We should be looking
for ways to help, not only the most vulnerable but everyone. Part of that comes
with ways to reduce the cost of living and the other part is to get people the
health care they need.
We don't
have one crisis any more. We've got two major crises – two. And nobody is
addressing them. This budget doesn't address them; there's no question about
that. Anyone who thinks this budget addresses that stuff, they haven't paid any
attention to it, I can guarantee you. The five-point plan, I can tell you,
electric cars, the ability to switch from home heating oil to electricity, it
doesn't work. It's not going to solve it for anyone. Because, at the end of the
day, the people that need the most help can't afford electric cars and they
certainly can't afford to switch.
I had a
lady call me yesterday and she had a quote to switch from oil to electric. Guess
how much? Twenty thousand dollars. So you're going to tell someone who's at the
very lowest end of the totem pole, we're going to help you out now, we'll give
you a $5,000 rebate to switch from oil to electric. All you've got to do is come
up with 15 grand. That's an easy fix. That'll look after you. When that's done,
you're still going to pay $400 or $500 a month for electricity.
It's not
a fix. It's not a solution. It's not anything. The reality of it is, is that
most of the people who are living in houses with oil heat are probably renting
them, which is even worse.
I
cannot, in good conscience, support this budget. I can tell you right now, I
will not. I'm with the Member for Harbour Main. I guarantee you there's nothing
in this budget that makes any sense with regards to how it helps the cost of
living.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
always a wonderful opportunity to be able to rise in this hon. House to speak on
behalf of the residents of the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. It's good
to be back here after a couple of weeks.
The last
time I had the opportunity to speak in this House, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with
respect to the budget on the blue-collared worker. Since that time, I've had
dozens of people reach out to me, to thank me for standing up for the middle
class, to bring their concerns forward, and that is what we need to do. Everyone
needs to be represented here in this House and, of course, throughout our
district.
Last
evening, I had the opportunity to speak with a young couple from Torbay. When I
was speaking with this couple I thought back to the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board with respect to her Budget Speech. This young
couple, two professionals living here with their parents in a basement
apartment, are moving out of province. As I was going through the conversation
with them, again, I thought on the line in the Budget Speech, and I quote “This
budget is about us. About what we all want to achieve – a stronger, smarter,
self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador.” I couldn't agree
more. I couldn't agree more.
I was overwhelmed with the thought of, not only this
particular couple leaving our province but how many more couples are leaving.
These are our young, educated, professional, innovative people that we are
losing. I know the quote, it was said here yesterday: it's not about the amount
of money that's in my pocket. It's about the amount of money that's being taken
out of my pocket, with respect to the level of taxation and the cost of living
here in our beautiful province.
So it
caused me to think how many more young individuals are leaving our province –
not only in my district, but in the 40 districts represented here. That is
concerning, and as I said before, that is reality.
It's
something that we are faced with. It's something that we have to make good,
credible choices to keep people here. Right now, that one couple is just one
couple, no doubt, but it leads you to think of how many more couples are in that
same situation. We all know that the cost of living is increasing for everybody;
it's a struggle. I spoke to a gentleman in Flat Rock, a senior, recently
retired, and I asked, as anyone would do: How are you doing today? And his
response to me was: I'm surviving.
Again,
that hits home. Because he didn't respond with anything more positive than: I'm
surviving. And we got into the conversation about the level of income that they
have and what's required for them on a daily basis, on a monthly basis, with
respect to the cost of living. We all heard about the cost of fuel, the cost of
heating oil, the cost of goods and services, and it is – it's getting harder and
harder each time when we look at what people have to face in order to live day
to day.
That is
the reality that we need to be faced with. When we look at the budget and what
is there and how it helps people – again, it was said earlier, a portion of our
population has been positively affected by this. But not everyone, and I go back
to the blue-collar worker. With that level of income, and they're working on a
daily basis, trying to pay the bills and trying to survive, it comes back to us
to make better decisions for all people of our province.
So I'm
no different than any other MHA here; I know constituents are reaching out to
you all the time. That's part of our job, is to listen to our constituents. And
they're making choices on a daily basis that, you know what, perhaps they
shouldn't have to be making. So I spoke to a small-business man in my district,
operates an excavation company, has a truck, an excavator and he's etching out a
living, no doubt about it. He's working hard; he's working hard for the dollars
that he makes. But it's become increasingly more difficult for that gentleman –
and he's only one of many – to make a go of his business.
When we
think of what has to be done with respect to small business, with respect to
people trying to survive, this couple back in Torbay, again, they said that
their dollar will go a lot further outside of this province. That's a heavy
statement. Their dollar will go a lot further outside of this province. So when
we're looking at the budget, when we're looking at our level of taxation, when
we're looking at the decisions that we are making here, that has to be in the
forefront.
I'm not
saying, Madam Minister, that you're not making and putting that effort into it.
That's not what I'm here to stand and say today. What I am saying is that we,
collectively, have to do better. We have to do better for our province, for all
of our constituents, because we all have family members who are going to be
affected. When we look at the many challenges, I'll go back to seniors with
respect to that particular demographic and the level of affordable housing.
I never
thought that it would be a difficult position in my district, in the District of
Cape St. Francis, that affordable housing would be an issue. But it is
increasingly becoming more and more evident that seniors cannot afford to live
in their homes. That is clear with respect to the for sale signs as you drive
down Route 20 – not Route 66 – with respect to the homes that are for sale. It
leads me to think on what they are having to do, the discussions that they are
having to make and the sacrifices that they have to give in order to stay here.
That, Speaker, is only a small demographic with respect to seniors who can't
live in their homes, but that is making a big difference to them, to their
families, to the communities as a whole.
When I
look at that five towns in my district and the level of services that the
municipalities have to provide and with people moving out, you have less of a
tax base. With businesses who are not doing so well and may close up, you have
less of a tax base to draw from. It is very concerning to me when I hear these
instances in my district and I think of the choices that these individuals have
to make, it causes me to wonder what else can we do. What better choices can we
make, collectively, as 40 MHAs in this House? That is something that we need to
keep first and foremost.
Mr.
Speaker, it was mentioned earlier today that this is Mental Health Week. I think
that needs to be recognized a bit more than what we are doing from May 2 to May
8. Good mental health, Mr. Speaker, has a positive effect on your physical
health and, in return, good physical health has a positive effect on your mental
health. That can't be said any clearer than that, with respect to mental health.
I do know that we have many issues facing our health care system in our province
– many issues. The Premier has stated, in this hon. House, that our health care
system is broken. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you from the many doctors and
nurses that live in my district, many of those who have reached out to me over
the past number of weeks and months, who are pushed to the max with respect to
the level of service that they have to provide in health care, they're burnt
out. They are pushed to the max; they are overstressed.
One
nurse did say to me a broken health care system leads to broken physicians and
broken nurses. When you stop and think about that and you really digest it,
these are the people that we are relying on when we're going to our health care
centres, our emergency rooms. This is something that's unacceptable with respect
to the level of care that we're at currently in our province. I won't repeat
what was said earlier with respect the seven years and the opportunities that
had been here, but I can tell you that a solid platform is needed going forward.
I know
that we've had the opportunity to speak with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat
Parfrey on many occasions with respect to the Health Accord, and we all agree
that the Health Accord is welcomed here in our province. But that's years out.
That is years out that we're looking at this particular solution for our
residents here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we need something a lot sooner
than that. We need something that's going to make a difference now, in addition
to the Health Accord that's going to be coming down the pipe in at least several
years.
So with
respect to the level of health care that we have in our province, I spoke with a
friend of mine in Stephenville Crossing who's coming into St. John's for cancer
care. You just look at the amount of money that that couple, husband and wife,
has to put out from coming from Stephenville Crossing to St. John's to stay here
overnight, meals, gas. The prices are just through the roof. And that's on top
of the stress that this couple is going through while one of the individuals is
having cancer care.
I can't
imagine having to travel across the Island for that. For me, I live 25 minutes
outside of the tertiary care centre here in St. John's, and we unfortunately had
to go through a time in our lives where that was needed as well with respect to
cancer care. A cancelled appointment yesterday for my wife is stressful enough
when you look at what you have to go through. But we were 25 minutes outside the
city; we didn't have to travel across the province. All of these things make you
stop and think of what can we do better to serve our residents. It's indeed
overwhelming at times. This is not something that we take lightly, no doubt
about it. It's overwhelming at times.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity over the last couple of months to do a bit of
travelling across the province from time to time. Recently, we were in the
beautiful District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. A beautiful district.
You won't find a pothole I can tell you that. Wonderful roads. What a Member.
I can
tell you, I can only dream of having the same in my district. But I can tell you
the people that we spoke with –
S. CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
The minister has a plan for
this evening for the news. Not a problem.
The
people that we spoke with in that district, Mr. Speaker, it's not all rosy, I
can tell you that. We hear it in the 12 districts that we represent. I know that
the government are hearing that as well in their districts. I know that. This is
not a one-sided issue, but I can tell you the people that we met within
Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the quote that one young lady left me was:
We are losing hope. We are losing hope, I say to the Member from the middle of
St. John's.
That
causes us great concern, when you're looking at the level of health care that's
provided. We discussed the Carbonear hospital and what is going on there.
They
must love what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. WALL:
When we spoke about the
Carbonear hospital and the level of care that's being provided there – of
course, the doctors and the nurses or what's going to be coming from the
Carbonear hospital – the quote that I was left with was, and I need you to
listen to this: Carbonear hospital is not part of the problem, but it's
definitely part of the solution.
S. CROCKER:
I've been saying it forever.
J. WALL:
I'm glad that the minister
agrees with me. I do hope that the Minister of Health would listen as well. When
it comes to the Carbonear hospital and the services that they provide not only
to the people in that district, or that area, I can come from Pouch Cove to go
to Carbonear General Hospital, not a problem.
So when
government is looking at this, remember that is part of the solution, when
you're looking at appointments that can be filled, some of the backlog or what
have you. It's important to remember that level of commitment.
Speaker,
I do know that I spoke with the municipalities in my district. They are
concerned with the state of the province, with our economy. They are concerned
with the cost of increases in municipal projects and tenders. When I listened to
the Minister of Transportation, he says that the roads plan is coming out soon.
I appreciate that. When we look at the level of money that is required to do the
work throughout the province, again, it is something that is not going to be an
easy fix and it won't be done overnight. But I do appreciate the level of
concern that the municipalities have with respect to municipal projects, tenders
and roadwork. I do just want to make that point known.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll touch briefly on Volunteer Appreciation Week. All of our
districts, I'm sure, had many, many functions for Volunteer Appreciation Week,
as did mine. I just want to note with respect to some volunteers that were
pointed out in my district.
So for
the Town of Bauline we had two, we had Jackie Legrow and Megan Hibbs; in the
Town of Pouch Cove we had Danny Connors; and in Flatrock, we had Brian and
Corrina Martin. I have to give a shout-out to my constituency assistant who did
attend that function for me; I was at another municipality.
She did
share with the council that by her being there they got the better end of the
bargain – never. Anyway, I'll just give a shout-out to my CA, Barb, for that and
to Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Michelle Hickey, Karen Youden Walsh, Rita
Kennedy and Cole Inkpen.
All of
these people are making a difference in my district and, of course, in the
individual municipalities. So that has to be recognized when we are coming home
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Thank you – for Volunteer
Appreciation Week.
S. CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the
Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I can't stop him.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
That's it. I appreciate that.
Speaker,
with respect to Come Home Year, I am hearing from my residents in my district,
from my municipalities that they are no doubt excited for Come Home Year. A lot
of work has to be done and the Minister of Transportation knows that. We've had
discussions.
A lot of
work has to be done in order for us to celebrate Come Home Year, but I will give
a shout-out to the municipalities – for the Town of Pouch Cove from July 14-24,
the Town of Bauline from July 28-31 and the Town of Torbay from August 4-7. So
if you are inclined and join me in my district for those particular times,
please reach out to me and we can celebrate together.
Speaker,
one thing before I leave, I think we need to recognize the Queen's 96th
birthday. She's 96. I can tell you that in the Town of Bauline they're having a
large celebration for that. I look forward to taking part with respect to the
Town of Bauline and their residents in that as well.
Speaker,
I will close by saying that I try to look for the positive. I do. Most times I
do. I will say with respect to the cost of living and health care that I spoke
on today with respect to the budget, we need to do more. We ought to do better.
We have the residents of this province here as our responsibility. It's
something that I take great pride in, representing the District of Cape St.
Francis. I take very seriously the work that this honourable House does.
I know
that there are times when there are things going back and forth. I realize that.
But I do have to say that we need to do better when it comes to our residents,
with the cost of living; we need to help them as they're going forward. With
respect to health care in our province, I'm looking forward to what's going to
be coming from the Minister of Health with these conversations that we're going
to be having with the Medical Association, the Nurses' Union, what have you. It
is something that we all have to keep first and foremost.
Mr.
Speaker, I do appreciate your time, your attention and especially the attention
of all Members here.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I can
understand why the Conservatives in my district are losing hope.
Mr.
Speaker, I move that this House do recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion”
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands recessed until 6 p.m.
May 3, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 47A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
going to take a different tack here, because I'm going to have a conversation as
to where and to inform the House as to a suggestion as to where we could earn
more money and benefit those in rural Newfoundland and within the province. So
at least I want to try to pass that on, and that will be a contribution for your
thought processes as you get around and make some decisions, and just see if you
can see a little bit of merit in what I present.
But
before I do so, I just to mention that my hon. Member for Ferryland stood up and
gave a Member's statement about the Flatrock Flyers and the Southern Shore and
how they defeated the Clarenville Caribous four games straight, didn't give them
too many goals, and didn't even give them a game. He said six Herders, and I
think he was modest in the fact that this man played on the teams that won five
Herders. So I would say, way to go to the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
I know that we were trying to
get entertainment into George's Brook-Milton, their cultural house one year, and
we were in hot pursuit of Kellie Loder. I know my Member had stated in his
address and wished her best of luck as a songwriter and singer from Badger. She
is in the Canada's Got Talent, so I
want to wish her all the best.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
We had Estimates this morning
and I must say, learned lots, sat down and we engaged the department. I learned
that we are an exporter of milk, which was exciting. I looked at that and said:
Boy, that's great; I didn't know that. But to know that we were self-sufficient
in our milk products as well as others, but also we're exporting it, and that
was good.
The only
thing that myself and the minister may have not seen eye-to-eye on was at one
point in time I told him during Estimates that the fishing industry ought to be
a $5-billion industry as opposed to a $1 billion. And I think he might have
looked at and said, well, you share what your science or what you've got, if
it's something that he doesn't have. The only thing I would say to you is let me
see before I start whether I can rationalize to you some thinking. Because in
this House if you did an analysis of what was being discussed on the floor of
this House, we're all here because of the fishing industry.
Everything we've had in Newfoundland and Labrador, our beginnings, were the
fishing industry. Our dispersed geography is because we were close to the
fishing grounds. It stretched all over our coastal communities. But in our
decision-making body, which are the 40 Members here in this House of Assembly,
not a lot of times that the fishery comes up. And that's part my responsibility,
it's part the minister's and it's part the other 38 Members that would be in
this House. There's not a riding here in this House of which the fishery is not
a significant part of, and it ought to be more significant.
Let me
share with you – and when the budget was read and the hon. minister read out the
budget on the fishery, I was thinking I was disappointed that it was only a
billion. The price of crab is so high, but I was a little disappointed that we
were settling and getting excited about $1 billion. And I noticed that the
government at the time gave a rousing applause as if this was great where we
currently find ourselves in the fishery. And that concerned me a little bit.
Let me
just give you some numbers. I've said before in the House, we have 200,000
metric tons we harvest – 200,000 metric tons is what we harvest and that equates
to $1 billion. So just keep that in mind. That's our fishery, 200,000 metric
tons.
So this
morning the minister and his wonderful staff mentioned about capelin and they
said the value of the capelin stock was $17 million. I don't know if that was
accurate, but I think that's what was estimated, that the –
D. BRAGG:
Last year's.
C. PARDY:
Last year.
So $17
million landed value is what was stated. Out harvest for capelin is 14,500. It
nets us $17 million. Capelin in Iceland, and I'll give you Norway – and
remember, global warming, every country we have in this world is battling and
has the environmental issues that we would have. Climate warming is an issue
with all those fisher nations. There's nothing different about
that.
In
Iceland, the quota is reported to be as high as 900,000 metric tons for 2022. If
it were 200,000 tons – remember we are 14,500 – that would be 234 million.
Norway is 70,000 metric tons, which, again, would be 4.8 times what we harvest
in capelin and they would be up 82 million. That is one species. That is one
species we got.
Let
me give you some of the other ones that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The quota, the total allowable catch for cod, in Newfoundland is 13,000 metric
tons; Norway it is 708,000-plus tons; Iceland is 180,000 tons.
We've got haddock. We're less than 1,000 in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
haddock in Iceland is 33,000, the quota. Norway is 180,000 metric tons. We are
less than 1,000.
The
mackerel, it was 4,000 last year. This year it is closed. In Iceland it's
140,000 metric tons and in Norway it's 298,000 metric tons.
The
herring, we are less than 15,000 metric tons; Iceland is 68,000; Norway is
454,000 metric tons. If we looked at the value of that alone, and we know that
our shellfish is our most lucrative and that is what is giving us our value
right now. But if we look at all the species that we have in our waters and know
that we collect 200,000 metric tons and we've got the largest coastline, coastal
coastline, in the world, two currents that are meeting that are strategically
making it a very rich, fertile breeding ground and one would say: Why are our
numbers so low?
Gus
Etchegary and many other fishers would say they are low because of federal
mismanagement. Federal mismanagement since 1949. That is a whole different topic
that we can discuss, but it is what it is.
The
other significant difference with Newfoundland and Labrador and those other
countries is the seal predation. The difference between those nations and ours
are the seals. They have less than two million harp seals on their quota. We
now, I would think, are probably close to 10 million. In 2019, we were 7.9
million.
The way
the herds are growing. The helicopter that flew up the coast and the Northern
Peninsula that I seen a video of two weeks ago, it was constant while they were
flying and while the people were talking the helicopter was taking a picture of
the ice and the seals that were on the ice. After about 5 minutes in the
presentation – and this was the St. John's Rotary Club where Bob Hardy was
speaking on seal predation and where we ought to be – it became a little
unnerving. There were so many, and the helicopter was moving, it was constant
and they were littered all over the ice.
We talk
about our cod fishery – we usually don't have grey seals pupping in Newfoundland
and Labrador. I think that is uncommon, from my understanding. Sable Island off
Nova Scotia, that's the real breeding ground, 80 per cent plus are there and the
others are not too far off. But now they're saying they're pupping in and on
Newfoundland and Labrador coastline.
Seals
are reported to eat 200,000 metric tons of fish in the ocean every six days. Let
me repeat that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Repeat, repeat.
C. PARDY:
I'm going to repeat it a
couple times.
Every
six days our seal population consumes 200,000 metric tons. Now, if 200,000
metric tons of fish equates to one billion – do the math. Just do the math,
linear, without having any science background, just do the math and one would
say that seals are eating, conceivably – let's just say six days and move it to
14 days – one billion of landed product that we could be developing in rural
Newfoundland for the betterment of the province.
Let's
say that it is not five billion. There is some out there saying that it should
be 10 billion. Bob Hardy would say between five billion and 10 billion. Let's
say it's two billion or three billion. It ought to be a pursuit of government to
make sure that the fish is not just eaten off our shores. It ought to be landed
and there ought to be a market value of the product that we currently have.
I said
to the minister this morning – he had said it was different times – in this
particular government, since coming into power in 2016, there hasn't been one
news release on sealing.
Now,
listen, you might say, well there's nothing to report on. If someone could have
said well at least you could have put in the changing of the chairs in the House
of Assembly that did have seal pelts on them. The only thing I would say is that
speaks volumes. We don't have a release on seals, no release since this
government here came into power.
Now, go
back to 2016 and before, there were numerous there. They were numerous and they
were substantive. But that is where we are.
John
Efford in 1999, let me give a couple of quotes of John Efford. You'll say that
was 23 years ago that he stated: I want to say at the very outset that for three
years plus I've been saying there is no larger problem facing the present and
future of Newfoundland and Labrador and the very survival of coastal communities
of Newfoundland and Labrador than the problem we have with under-biomass
resource of fish stocks and an overpopulated seal herd. There is no greater
problem facing these communities than that problem in itself.
Now, you
should have listened to your colleague and we should have had much more action
since '99 to this point in time.
One
question I would love to ask, which we never had time in Estimates, would be:
What exactly have you done? And that's a fair question. There are pressures and
there are things that you can't do. Listen, there are high hurdles that you're
going to have to climb here and there are things that are barriers. But we've
got to make that first step in making sure that we do get a greater return on
our fishery.
The
minister had disagreed with the $5 billion. The only thing I would say to you, I
would hope that the decision-makers that are across from me here tonight will
think that it has a degree of merit – 200,000 metric tons, $1 billion for our
economy, our landed value. Seals eat it in six days. A depleted stock with an
overpopulated herd of seals is going to quickly demise the remainder of some of
these stocks. It makes sense. When stocks are plentiful, we haven't got to worry
about these seals, I don't think, of making extinct the redfish.
A DFO
fish biologist states that he can see, in the next short time, cod on the South
Coast becoming extinct in that area. Now, Mr. Swain stated, in a couple of
readings and articles, extinct because of the sealing situation that we have.
That is alarming.
So here
we are with a quota of 450,000 thereof, approximately of seals, and we don't
harvest anywhere close to that. I said this morning let's do something; let's
incentivize. I don't know if that went over very well. But I'm just saying let's
do something to make sure we minimize the seal herd to make sure that we land
more product and get more revenue for our province. Rural Newfoundland will
thank you for it because I would think at this point in time what's saving our
bacon, as was stated by the minister and I would concur, is our shellfish. If
something happens to our shellfish by those numbers I just read out to you,
we're in trouble.
John
Efford called it right. We are in 2022 and if the shellfish industry drops and
we lose that price that we get for fish, you tell me what else we're going to
harvest from our waters. Seals are plentiful our there; we can harvest seals.
What else? So the only thing I would say, that is food for thought.
Another
one Mr. Efford says – just to quote – what I am saying is what has happened to
the fish stocks? We have caused the fish stocks to collapse. But at the same
time we caused the fish stocks to collapse, we stopped hunting seals and the
populations of seals exploded. Now it is out of whack; it is out of balance.
I would
say to you if anybody – the Member this morning, for Lake Melville, talked about
the value of capelin and I forget what he said. It was pretty inspiring.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
C. PARDY:
Yeah, I know. But he said they were the vegetation of the ocean?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Fertilization.
C. PARDY:
Fertilizer of the ocean. He
is 100 per cent correct; it is.
One
fisher from the hon. Member's district out in Green Bay contributed to a slide
presentation that I saw on the Rotary session where they opened up one seal and
the stomach and they had a five-gallon container of capelin – one seal. And now
we're going to close down for fishers when we have a herd out there of 10
million that is feasting away every day while we sit here in this House and
every minute. So the only thing that I would say to you, John Efford may be
right: If we don't soon take action, it is going to be too late. And Doug Swain
may be correct for the South Coast, but it won't only be the South Coast.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm glad
they were so good to listen to what my colleague had to say. I'm not sure that
you'll be as happy with me.
I will
start off, though, because I think all of us in this Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador know how important the fishing industry is to us. When we joined
Canada in 1949, we brought the richest fishing grounds in the world, to Canada.
As a matter of fact, history will show you that Canada's value as a fishing
nation went up considerably because of that. However, we all know what followed.
It followed that the management of that resource became the responsibility of
the federal government. And we can sit here all day and argue about that, and I
would be one that would say that it hasn't been managed well, similar as my
colleague has said, and I would also say to all of us, if we could have an
accord for the oil off our shore, then we should have an accord for the fishery
off our shore.
We don't
need sole management of it; we need joint management of it. We need to be at the
table. And I think that's something we could all agree on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I look forward to that fight,
I really do, because I believe that everyone in this House would want that same
principle. I also believe that the principal beneficiary of our fishing resource
should be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador first.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
We're willing to share, but
let's start off looking at our own. And I'll go one step further, to say that
the principal beneficiary of the people who are involved in that should be the
people who go out on the water every single day and risk their lives to catch
that fish. They should be the principal beneficiary. We'll share with everyone;
but they're the ones that go out on that water and risk their lives every day.
So, again, that's something I think we all value – we are here because of the
fishery, and I think we'll be here for a lot longer as a province because of the
fishery.
The
other thing I'll add to him when he talks about seals. Seals are the wolf of the
ocean. They have no enemy. There are no natural predators in our waters that are
eating seals. Now maybe if the temperatures keep warming up, we'll get more
great white sharks that'll come up. But other than that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah. And a few killer
whales, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah. But they're not eating
enough.
One of
the challenges we have – we have a quota right now. We have a quota, as I
understand it, of 450,000. The problem is we have no markets. So as my colleague
said, and I will challenge you, it's your challenge to find a way to open up a
couple of plants and do some experimental work on developing food products,
markets, seal oils and others so we can take advantage of that 450,000 quota
that we already have.
We need
to harvest that quota. We don't need the federal government's support to do
that. They've already given it to us. We just need to get on with it and find a
way and harvest it, and put it to use. So that'll be all I have to say about the
fishery for now.
I've
spoken lots about what's not in the budget. Today, tonight, I'm going to talk
about some of the things that are in the budget. We've had a few conversations
already about Herders, Herder champions and records and sports; well I would say
that the government opposite is setting
a
few records of their own. As a matter of fact, let's talk about some of their
records.
They now have the record for the highest gas prices in the history of our
province, and every week they seem to set a new record. Not something that I
think you would be proud of in the record books. They have a record for the
highest prices in the history of our province for home heating fuel. And again,
continue to set records. Again, not something that I am sure the record books
should reflect.
We
are about to introduce sugar tax. Never before in the history of our province
have people had to pay a sugar tax. I challenge anyone in this House to stand up
and say that this sugar tax has merit. It is just a tax. Nothing more than a
tax. To say that there are no tax increases in this year's budget is really not
true because, in September, we are going to be paying a sugar tax. All of the
evidence that our side has been able to find points to nothing that suggests
that this will actually do anything to solve body mass index or make significant
changes to it.
So
I would argue that this is one thing and one opportunity that the government has
to make a difference. The budget says change is in the air. I would hope that
the Members opposite and the minister in her budget will take some consideration
of some of the things that can be changed in her budget. This is just one of
them: the sugar tax. That needs to be changed. That needs to be stopped. There
is no need to inflict more taxes on the people in Newfoundland and Labrador than
they already have to pay.
Some of the highest personal income tax rates for two-person incomes in the
$100,000 a year mark are right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have some
of the highest personal income rates in that category. So imagine if you are
trying to retain health professionals or encourage people, other professionals,
IT people to stay in our province or to move here, you have to have that
competitive tax structure in order to do that. You have to have that.
So
that is the kind of
thing that these people are looking at. I can give you an example right now of a
person who moved to Nova Scotia to take the exact same type of job they had in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They are turning around; they're getting the exact
same pay in Nova Scotia as they got in Newfoundland and Labrador. The only
difference is they're taking home $5,000 more in their pocket in Nova Scotia.
So
again, that's part of the things that we need to do. I guess one of the things
that bothers me a lot, and I've spoken about it – another record. For the first
time in our history as a province, people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to
pay to see a primary care provider. When you can't get a doctor, you have to pay
to go to see a nurse practitioner. And this is something that, in my opinion, is
a violation of the principles of the MCP program – the fact that we have to
actually pay to see a nurse practitioner.
The
Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, none of them have been
able – with all of their officials – to find a way to be able to pay those nurse
practitioners. Other than saying to the people of the province, the seniors of
the province, I'm sorry but you have to pay. You have to pay out of your pocket
to see a primary care provider. I never would have thought that our medical
system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would come to that. I really
don't.
But
that's where it is. I believe it could be fixed. I think it needs to be fixed. I
don't think we should be delaying it. I think it needs to happen now. And let's
get it done. There have been a number of suggestions made on the health care
front, for example. We've talked about reducing the number of health
authorities. That's been on again, off again, for a number of years now. It's
back on again. We're about to make the change in the number of health
authorities.
Some
people, at the end of the day, that may be a good thing. But I would suggest
that before we focus on the number of administrative or health authorities, we
focus on getting one new health information system. Because our health
information system looks like Dolly Parton's coat of many colours. It's a
patchwork, that's all it is. They do not talk to each other. Health authorities
can't speak to each other; their systems don't talk to each other. These are the
real challenges.
Now I'm
hearing rumours that we're going out with an RFP for a new health information
system for the new hospital in Corner Brook. Sounds great, except what are we
going to do with a new health information system for a hospital in Corner Brook?
How is that going to tie in to the health information systems that exist in the
rest of Western Health or even the other parts of the province? Surely, it is
time to invest in a new health information system for the entire province.
So if
you're going to go out with an RFP, let's do it, but let's do it for the entire
province because it is long overdue. Then we can start to talk about the one
health record and then we can have people communicating, and maybe then we can
start to figure out where the beds are available and what surgeons are available
and some of the other things that we've talked about in this House of Assembly.
But that is where we should be going.
Here is
another interesting thing: A number of years ago, the government opposite
commissioned a report on waste management boards. They have this report now for
two or three years – I'm not sure if it is three or two. That report recommended
going to one waste management board. I think there may be as many as eight.
Imagine, we're standing here today and we have more boards looking after garbage
than we do health care. And they're paid; the board chairs of these boards are
paid. The board members are paid to attend meetings. All of the board members of
the health authorities are volunteers.
So how
does that make any sense? Why are we sitting on a report that recommended going
to one board for garbage and done nothing about it, but we can now say that
we're going to change up the health care system and the number of boards? So
again, I wonder, why that has not happened. I would certainly like to understand
it a little better.
Now, I
have to have a little go at my colleague over there, the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure, because earlier today – and I respect him for
the job he does; it is a tough job and a very tough portfolio – he talked about
due diligence and he talked about being responsible for the spending of
government money. So I stand here and I say, those are great morals to have and
I would hope that everyone would have them. However – there is a but – I still
do not understand, standing here, how $9 million can be allocated to move from a
70-year-old courthouse to renovate a 60-year-old building and spend $9 million
doing it.
My
question is simply that: What due diligence was done to decide that this was the
best option? What options were considered and how did you arrive at the decision
that renovating the 60-year-old-building was the best option? Because that is
the question. It is not about location, because location becomes one town
fighting against the other. It is about how the decision was made. Certainly,
none of the people that work in Justice out in that particular region were aware
of it; that this was a decision being made. Certainly, there are lots of
questions coming from the people around that facility about how the decision was
made.
I
would simply ask: Please identify exactly what the process was. I know the Town
of Stephenville has written the minister asking for some clarification on the
process that was used to select this, what options were considered. I have been
told that there was a tender ready to go to put a new elevator system in the
current building and it never got issued. Again, I don't understand why that
would have happened.
So
I seek clarification. You know, any time you are investing money in our region
is a good thing, but I still think it should be able to be explained. It should
be able to say this is the options we looked at. This is why we have chosen it.
This is the plan. All of that is a key, important ingredient when you make a
decision to spend taxpayers' money. We have all talked about it in the past.
So
$9 million of taxpayers' money is going to be spent to renovate a 60-year-old
building and move out of a 70-year-old building. Again, people simply want to
know: How did you arrive at that decision? What analysis was done? How was the
budget determined? What other options did you look at? And all of those are
legitimate questions. If you can't provide the answers, then that's a problem
because those answers should be readily available to the people of the province.
Earlier today we got notice that the Rothschild report won't even be available
through ATIPP. The Premier said it would be. The parts that were sensitive would
be redacted, but today we received notification that the Rothschild report will
not be released in no way, shape or form.
Imagine, we spent $5
million of taxpayers' money on a report that we have no intention of ever
releasing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. How is that
accountability? How is that transparency? If there are sensitivities, we
understand that. But surely not every single page in that report is sensitive
and will result in somehow or other disclosing critical financial information.
What is concerning is the fact, as I just said, that the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, who paid for this report, will not be able to see it.
That's
the ruling that came out today. I'm sorry, people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
we trust you enough to vote for us, but we don't trust you enough with the
information that we've received because we don't want to disclose it to you.
There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Fundamentally wrong that at the
end of the day. The people of the province, it is their money, it is their
dollars, and I would think that we should be able, should not be afraid, should
be willing to share with them what we've found out as a result of that.
Finally,
before I close, I wanted to talk about again – go back to that principle of
change is in the air. There is a real opportunity here – we, on this side, can't
make adjustments to the budget, but you can. Do not be afraid to listen to some
of the opinions that you hear from this side of the House. Do not be afraid of
the suggestions that are being made. Do not be afraid to say, you know what?
Maybe we can do things a little differently.
There is
significant flexibility in that budget. Millions of dollars worth of
flexibility, as a matter of fact, that things can be adjusted. We don't need to
have a sugar tax. We can do something about a rebate program for our citizens.
Because I have to believe that at the end of the day, it's not simply the people
on this side of the House who are getting those concerns about the high cost of
gasoline and the high cost of home heat fuel. I have to believe that it's
impacting you and your constituents, and you are getting those calls.
So I
would simply ask that you take an opportunity at the end of this as we all stand
up and talk about options. Don't make the change because the PC Party wants the
change; don't make the change because the independents want the change; don't
make the change because the NDP want the change. Make the change because the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador want you to make the change. They need your
help. So I would simply ask: Please, take another look; find a way. The money is
there. As they say in the Nike commercial: Just do it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour again on this evening session of the House of Assembly to stand
with my colleagues and talk to the 2022-2023 budget.
As I
mentioned one time before when I spoke to the budget, this is my 40th budget
that I've either been directly or indirectly connected to. And I've seen a lot
of things in my lifetime. In my lifetime as a civil servant and as somebody in
the not-for-profit sector, and sat in the House of Assembly many times when
budgets were being read and happened to be part of some of the processes prior
to that.
But I
want to acknowledge for the people at home who are watching now because it may
be a little convoluted, what we are really debating right now, at what level we
are at when it comes to the budget itself. Right now we're debating a
subamendment that we had put forward as the Opposition. And what my colleague
for Harbour Main had put forward in regard to the debate on the budget.
Right
now, we're at stage three. Stage one would be the budget itself and the
discussion on the budget. Then there was an amendment to the budget that was put
forward and debated, and now a subamendment to the budget.
The
process that's used here is for the Opposition to be able to outline, from their
perspective, what they've heard from their constituents, what they've heard from
various people and organizations around the province where they feel there are
gaps in services that need to be provided; or where there could be other better
ways that the monies could be channelled to address the needs, particularly of
people.
But
before I get into that, I do want to outline one specific thing here. I'm 120
per cent confident that due diligence in addressing the process for a budget was
totally done by the minister and her officials, by all the bureaucrats – I know
I was one; I had time to look at that. No doubt all the numbers were added up
and put in the proper categories and looked at where you could get the best
return on it.
The
challenge that we are having and what we are hearing is that it didn't go far
enough to address the particular needs or some of the needs that needed to be
addressed were lumped in with other things. The minister is true when she says
most of the additional revenues that are being generated right now, because of
the increase in oil, have gone back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Not disputing that; 100 per cent. I don't even disagree that that's not a good
thing in a normal circumstance. The unfortunate thing is that this is not a
normal circumstance; that the cost of living index has dramatically increased so
much that the most vulnerable, the people on fixed incomes are most dramatically
affected.
Would we all like to have a break on tax? Sure. We got that. There is some
evidence of that here. I'll acknowledge that, some good evidence of that. But we
also acknowledge the fact that there is money to be invested in certain areas
that could help generate and stimulate the economy, and they are great things to
do. But this is a unique situation that dictated a unique approach.
You
know, giving a break on the cost of your registration of your vehicle is great,
and across the board it seems fair and it makes sense. But in the case of
somebody who financially can afford that extra $90, that break is welcome, but
it doesn't change their life. It does change it for somebody on a fixed income.
Somebody who has to make the decisions around heating their home; making
decisions around the medications that they may be able to take; making decisions
around the quality of food they can do; or even the social things that they
would like to do.
So
we will never – you will hear us – we will never attack the government that they
spent frivolously. In this case, I don't see any evidence of that in this budget
right here. What we are saying is prioritizing and picking what would have been
the best approaches to dealing with certain issues. I think every cent is
welcome by the people that they're savings, that is going to certain areas, but
we found – and I've travelled to nine communities in two weeks, right around
this beautiful province of ours. I do want to acknowledge to the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure when I did go down with the Brazil-mobile,
down in St. Alban's, I was very welcomed and accepted and the 200 people loved
to see my picture travel down that – and it's a beautiful highway.
E. LOVELESS: (Inaudible) St. Alban's.
D. BRAZIL:
I only got that far yet. I will be coming back further.
E. LOVELESS:
Come on down.
D. BRAZIL:
I'll be right down to Harbour Breton and English
Harbour East and West and all around. I will get to see them all.
But
I do acknowledge that there are investments in infrastructure here; there are
improvements. But I will acknowledge one thing that the minister said, and I
know because I have the unique situation on this side of being the only person
who served in Cabinet in the Official Opposition. The only person who
understands – and I shouldn't say understands, but lived, that it's not as simple as people think about making decisions and
spending money that you don't have. You have to prioritize.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He was a good minister.
D. BRAZIL:
I'm glad some people thought I was a good minister. I think most on your side
who were around in my day would have thought I was a good minister. Maybe not
all on this side, maybe not all on this side. Not my honoured colleague there
from Mount Pearl - Southlands.
But my
intent of saying that is that I realize when you're in Cabinet – and I know all
Members of the House of Assembly, we're all 40 equal, but when you're into the
decision-making process, trying to find the right mix, the right balance and
trying to prioritize certain things becomes a challenge. As a minister, your
first priority, when you get in that Cabinet room, is to the ministry that you
have responsibility for, because it's your budget you're responsible for. You're
trying to outline why the programs and services and where you want that money to
go is a priority over another colleague's spending.
That
becomes a balancing act there because everybody still is answerable to the money
they have. You're going in trying to dictate what is important in acknowledging
the responsibilities you have, but in actually providing the services that are
necessary. So I get that.
One of
the things that I've changed my mindset on in the last four months at least,
I've disagreed now with some of my colleagues on this side and some other people
and some big agencies, I don't think we necessarily have a spending issue. We
have a revenue issue. I've yet to find our spending is not in accordance with
what people need. Not necessarily what they want, but what they need.
I mean,
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure would outline he could use
another $200 million just to address his bridge issues. I know that. The
Minister of Health could use a billion dollars to address some of those
particular issues. I know every line department here could use it. Education
could use it to do things and all the other line departments here. The issue
becomes around how do we generate the additional revenues to be able to provide
the services people need? Not necessarily what they want – need.
One of
the issues becomes around getting our fair share. That brings me back to our
subamendment here. That's what our subamendment is about here; it's
acknowledging the fact that more has to be done by all of us, but particularly
by the government who has the responsibility and the ability to lobby their
federal counterparts to get additional monies that we're entitled to as part of
this Confederation from the federal government. If it's in equalization, if it's
in other types of transfers, if it's in other partnerships in development. If
it's in some other specific initiative that could be done.
I know
we have them in Municipal Affairs. We have joint partnerships that work there.
We know we have them in other line departments that work and they are very
valuable. We know we have them in health care.
The
issue that we have, and we're hearing from the people of this province, is that
we're not getting our fair share and we're saying – not that we're not getting
our fair share, but basing it on a particular formula that 95 per cent of the
time is based on population doesn't address the issue and it isn't fair. Don't
forget, this province was around long before the rest of this country was
settled. So 500-plus years dictate that our geography is totally different. The
demographics are totally different and, as a result, so are some of the
challenges around how we provide services and even some of the issues that we
have around health care.
So just
to blanketly say, based on your population, here is the amount of money you
would get becomes a challenge. No different than it is with infrastructure,
municipal affairs – our municipalities are spread across a vast area. The
geography dictates it is not as simple to invest – what you get for $1 million
in Toronto in infrastructure in the sense of being able to do something with the
ground; it might take you $2 million here because of the nature of bedrock and
all the other challenges you may have here. Or the shoreline, for example, with
the surges we have. Or the wind issues we may have. So just on a blanket concept
doesn't work well for us in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
concept of transfer payments were based on the principle, as I always understood
them, in economic downturns when your economy is down is when you're entitled to
a transfer, not just because your population is at a certain level. We see in
Quebec, Quebec runs a surplus budget and still gets $13 billion in transfer
payments and cuts their taxes annually for individuals. While in this province,
taxes are having to change in an upward swing consistently to try to meet the
finical demands in this province.
So there
is a problem and that is what this subamendment talked about. The failure to be
able to deliver on what we should be entitled to; we shouldn't even have to
fight for this. There should be an agreement already in play that says the
formula for supports for our province are based on these things.
The big
thing that it should be based on is the economics. The economics dictate that if
we're generating enough revenues to provide adequate service – we're not saying
better services but we're not saying worse services – adequate services for the
people of this province. Meaning that if somebody in another province travels 35
kilometres or 50 kilometres to get a provided service in health care or
education, than we should be in that same range. It doesn't have to be exactly
and we're never saying that we need to have better service than other people. We
need to have adequate services in Newfoundland and Labrador that would provide
the service that people would need.
But to
do that people need to understand and accept, particularly federally, that there
are some unique challenges in Newfoundland and Labrador. We'll argue about
there's wastage in everything we do and there's more efficient ways we can do
stuff and there are things we'll challenge. I have no problems. People
challenged us when we were in government, they'll challenge us again when we get
back in government.
But what
I'm saying here is that there's no big, glaring indication that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians just waste money for the sake of wasting it. No administration,
I've never seen that – we try stuff that may work out or it may not work out. We
try things that you won't recover the real benefits for years down the road. But
for us to be labelled federally as saying here's all you're going to get, just
enough to keep you from dire straits.
It was
noted here before, a former premier did write a letter; there was a challenge
here. There was a major challenge financially. A lot of that was based, not on
our overspending – people can say all that, but we know it wasn't. The minister
will know in Finance, it wasn't that because we're generating fairly close to
what it needs.
Most
provinces run deficits. Some years they'll bring it up. We're reliant on certain
income streams; the oil industry, the mineral industry, tourism industry,
fishing industry. Even the forest industry and aquaculture and all these things.
When one falters, it has an impact. When three or four falter the one time, like
has happened the last couple of years, it has a major impact on all of us. It
has an impact on what we're bringing in.
So to
still be able to be fairly stable, speaks volumes. But if we were given the same
opportunities as other provinces, if we were given the same acknowledgement that
we have a unique set-up here, to give some extra supports, it would put us over
that threshold. It would give any administration the ability to be flexible on
other things and prioritize the things that they need to do, and address certain
issues and knock off the things that we're behind on – if it's in health care on
surgeries, if it's in investment in businesses and giving businesses a break, if
it's supports for seniors, if it's about our infrastructure and our road
networks and our bridge networks, if it's about other supports for special needs
adults or children, whatever it may be that would give it.
But it
doesn't work if we don't get that fair shake from Ottawa. That's what we've been
asking for, for the last number of years. Listen; when I was on that side, the
Opposition said the same thing, that we need to lobby. I know there are premiers
who have gone and there are ministers who've gone and argued the points and
negotiated the points. I know we've been successful sometimes and not so
successful other times.
I don't
think we should have to be doing that, no matter what administration. There
should be a common respect out of Ottawa, for whoever is there, because we go up
and we advocate. We can advocate collectively as a group, as the Members of the
House of Assembly, all 40 of us, that this is what we feel is right and just for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We're not asking for more than anybody
else, but we're not willing to accept less than anybody else either, based on
our needs and based on what we've proven to be supportive of in this
Confederation.
So we've
talked about that, and we've all seen it where we came back with $2 billion
cheques in hand. We've seen it where there have been agreements around rate
mitigation and the supports there. I get all that. But I would think and I would
hope that somewhere along the way, in the next number of years, sitting in this
House we come up with a collective approach to Ottawa that says, no matter what
administration is there or what administration is in this House, here are the
standards that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect when it comes to
services; here is what we propose would be an equitable process in evaluating
what we are entitled to here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Don't
just base it on population, because as we've seen we have a decreasing
population, we have an aging population and we have all kinds of challenges.
Base it on other things. Base it on the natural resources that we have here and
what that means to this country, what that contributes back. Think of the
billions, the tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone
back to this country because of the resources that we've had here. So that must
account for something at the end of the day.
So we're
just asking for some fairness here, and that's what we're talking about here.
This is what our challenge is on this, why we have a challenge with this budget.
Not because of what it's offering in it, or what it's not offering as much, as
what it could've done. What other gaps in services that it could've filled that
it didn't in this case. And I get it, it couldn't. You can only spend X number
of dollars, that's all you have to do.
The
issue that we've argued to is that we need to be able to find the resources and
the revenues that provide the services that are necessary. One of the gaps in
that is not over-taxation, is not overzealous taxation of people. That doesn't
help; that doesn't stimulate the economy. I'd rather be able to take $50 million
and invest it in the business initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador so they
create more jobs and more taxation and more industries as part of that. But to
do that, we need a partner in this game and the partner has to be Ottawa on
every angle.
Not
every now and then giving us what they consider a handout. And that's how it's
proposed to us: a handout to keep us happy because we have a challenge. What it
should be, it should be about the equality of having us as a partner and giving
us our fair share. So again, I want to stimulate the economy based on let's
develop a partnership nationally. Not just coming down every now and then when
it's a bailout, when they consider it a bailout because it might be embarrassing
to them if something happens.
We talk
about, on one side of it, hydroelectric power is going to be the mainstay.
Canada will be able to stand up for green energy – and very rightfully so; we
welcome it. Have no illusion, I spoke to it in this House and still would speak
that I think there are other initiatives under green energy and the environment
that we could very much speak to and invest in that would be beneficial to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
issue now becomes the rest of the country would like to use us for that example
and we want to be part of that. But we want to be part of it as a partner. So
invest in what we need here; treat us equally; make sure that our citizens are
safe and healthy and educated so we'll help this country get to where it needs
to go to be the global leaders when it comes to green energy, to environmental
friendliness and environmental stewardship.
But don't just piecemeal when it is convenient for the
rest of the country. That is not how it works. I am not going to pick on Quebec
but I do have to acknowledge, our relationship with them, at times, is
cantankerous. At best, it is tolerance and not on our part because I think we
are very open. I said, even when we are not in the best of friends, we are very
professional. That's Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will work with people.
We will find ways to make things work. That responsibility comes on both sides.
I say both sides: the federal side and the provincial side.
So
when I talk about then – so the people at home would understand what we are
doing now because they might say, but you have been talking about this
continuously. You know what? We have changed. There are three things. It's the
budget itself where we had an opportunity, after the minister presented it, to
look at what is in it and we have acknowledged there are some good things in
there that we applauded. There are some things there we're not quite sure; they
might work out. We are hopeful. There are some things there that we're feeling
really didn't hit the mark and then we know there is a number there that are
some gaps in services that we need to find a way to fill those gaps because we
are now hearing, maybe even stuff that we weren't aware of – and with all due
respect to everybody here, maybe we haven't faced them.
But
since I have been travelling and my colleagues have been travelling here and the
budget has come out – and I suspect Members on both sides are getting the same
thing. They are hearing some of the challenges. I know things have happened like
the price of fuel has dramatically gone up and I know we can't directly control
that. I get that. But there are things we can control, and my colleague noted
some of the things we can around taxation and some of the other supports around
rebates and some of the other supports around the most vulnerable, offsetting
some of those costs. And I get that.
What I want to make clear to the people at home, we have had the budget speech.
We are going to go back to the budget debate. That will happen – before the
budget is fully voted on, every Member of this House of Assembly will get an
opportunity to speak to it, what they feel, their views on it, even some
suggestions that could be put in play that would be of benefit to them.
I
know a number of my colleagues have said over here, listen, we are here to
collaborate, and we have said that from day one. We are here to make
suggestions. Some of them may have come from the people over on this side. Some
have come, definitely, from our constituents. Some have come from constituents
from ministers and the Members of the Liberal Party. We are all one big part of
this great province of ours, so everybody's view should be taken into account
and, as a result, hopefully, we come up with a happy medium that works, that is
affordable, that has the time frames it does and meets the outcomes that we are
looking for.
There's
no doubt there are going to be some groups that are not happy with it, and I get
that. But our priority should be right now that – we're in a crisis for two
years with COVID and we're just now transitioning out of that. I know there are
going to be things that will challenge us, the new norm will be something we
were never expecting and there may even be a cost associated with it.
But
we're also in another crisis now. We're in an economic crisis for people's own
ability to stabilize their quality of life. Not improve it, but stabilize it,
because there are people making decisions about what they can and cannot afford
and that's heart wrenching. Particularly when we know, in a lot of cases, these
are the most vulnerable or the people who have given most of their lives,
because now they're seniors on fixed incomes. So we have a responsibility to
address those particular needs and find whatever is necessary to alleviate that
for the near future.
I, like,
I think, everybody in this House see there's a future for Newfoundland and
Labrador. I see it on the Burin Peninsula, the Connaigre Peninsula and the
Northern Peninsula. I see it in Labrador. I see it in the urban centres. I see
it in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland. It's everywhere.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the resolve, but they also have the
ability and the resources to make this a great place to be and a place where
it's not overburdening to be able to get certain basic services or to be able to
have a quality of life.
So
before I end, I just wanted to note a couple of other things. We had talked
about this amendment. This amendment is about, at the end of the day, before we
vote on the budget, we want to make it clear that this Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador that we're so proud to be part of has to do everything possible so
that we don't have our citizens leaving. We heard heart-wrenching stories about
people this week saying, I don't know, if I have to go out of the province for
health care, maybe it's better I live somewhere else. Having people say well, my
plan was to move back to Newfoundland and Labrador after retire, I don't know
anymore.
We have
to make this the engaging place where I know they want to stay and where they
want to come back to. We can collectively do that. We have to get on the right
page, consistently. Part of that would be looking at the subamendment here.
Finding a way to let Ottawa know that, not only do we deserve more but we want
to more a part of this Confederation by getting back to what would make
Newfoundland and Labrador a sustainable province and continue to keep
contributing to this province or this country.
We
talked about the Bay du Nord, and I go back to that because that really, to me,
was an eye-opener, that the future of this province, the future of the people,
this generation and the generations to come, hinged on a couple of people's
views in a federal Cabinet. That was very worrisome. Very worrisome to me and to
the tens of thousands of people who reached out to us, very much so. We need to
find a better mechanism here to ensure that.
Now, are
there checks and balances? One hundred per cent. Do we, should we, are we
committed to being cognizant of the environment? One hundred per cent, without a
doubt. And that no company, no big industry, no outsider should have control
over what we're doing here.
We
talked to the trades union people and they talk about a community benefits
package. That has to be for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it has to
be for the companies in Newfoundland and Labrador and it has to be for the
communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We can make that happen here in this
House.
So what
we're saying in this part of the amendment is about getting a fair shake.
Collectively, getting to Ottawa, either convincing them or forcing them,
whatever mechanism we have to use. I would hope it would be collaboratively
convincing them that our stake in Confederation is not only beneficial to us but
it's extremely beneficial to the rest of this country. So we talk about that.
I just
want to note a couple of things that we've talked about in the past. You know,
there are all kinds of good ideas. We had a Blue Book that we put out prior to
an election, we update it every year so that it's modern and it reflects the
needs of individuals or organizations or the will of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. But we talked about a lot of things.
I'm just
going to note a number. Who takes them and modifies them or implements them
exactly as they are, who takes credit for them, it's immaterial to us over here.
The benefit right now is that it improves the lives of people in Newfoundland
and Labrador. That's what it's totally about. I'm just going to note a few
things that are in the table of contents that outlines it.
It does
three things: It outlines exactly what our vision would be and it's a vision of
the people that we've spoken to, which are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the last number of years. But it also
talks about how it would be implemented. Some of it is as easy as modifying
existing programs. That could have been developed by any party or any
administration. The third talks about the costing of these, because anybody can
promise anything. We know, we hear, there are parties that will promise
everything but don't have a plan on how they can deliver. That becomes the
(inaudible). Coming up with a program that reflects the needs of the people,
developing it so that it can be implemented and the outcomes will be beneficial.
And the third, finding the costing that's effective and frugal and can be
sustained. They're the three things.
These
are the table of contents so sometime, if anybody at home would like to look at
it, you can go on the PC Party webpage and it's called our Blue Book. It's a
blueprint for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I just want to touch
it, because I don't think – we don't have monopoly on this. I know all parties
have talked about similar things. We've just outlined what we think would be an
approach to it, how it would be done and how it would be financed.
This is
what we talked about. We talked about one of the big sustainability ones: It's
all about jobs. Creating employment in Newfoundland and Labrador is the key
thing. We know when people are employed the revenues that are generated. We know
the sense of community, the sense of hope. We know that people are more
physically active and involved. They're more engaged. We know communities become
more vibrant. And we know it sends a message around this world that we're
trained, we're skilled, we are hard workers and do you know what? We are open
for business.
Fighting
for fairness is what I just talked about, a new deal with Ottawa and it outlines
how that new deal could be achieved. It talks about what it right and equitable
and fair. Bringing back jobs: it's talking about jobs that were lost to other
jurisdictions in this country that belonged to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
It talks about secondary processing. It talks about our resources being utilized
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Lowering
taxes equals more jobs. Companies have tax breaks. They invest their money into
new equipment which creates more employment. There is taxation for individuals
then who are more apt to buy more things within their society which creates more
employment.
Putting
locals first, I already mentioned that. We talked about a community benefits
agreement and we're not just talking trade unions. We're talking about any
Newfoundlander and Labradorian who can provide a service in Newfoundland and
Labrador, they should be the benefactors and then all the spinoff supports,
obviously, benefit the people of this province.
Bring
home more people to fill more jobs. We know we have a population challenge in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I see help wanted. It's amazing. I told a story forty
something years ago when I went to university – 43 years ago – trying to get a
job. I put in 106 resumes. I used to get two hours work at Sobeys a week. That
is all and that was just by luck. Now, you could have two jobs a day if you
wanted them in Newfoundland and Labrador
So that
speaks volumes. It tells me the potential is here. But it tells me we have a gap
in being able to fill those potential services. So if it means immigration,
which is a great thing, let's keep doing that. It's great; we have some good
strategies. I acknowledge what we are doing in Ukraine. Let's keep doing what we
need to do to get people here, but we have – and we all know it – tens of
thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over this country. Let's find
a way to get some of them back to Newfoundland and Labrador also in their
communities that they are comfortable with, providing the services that they are
already skilled at. There are ways that this can be done.
Educating to complete. You know, we've talked about it and I'm so happy – I have
to acknowledge in the budget and I have to acknowledge the Minister of Finance
and the Minister of Education. I have been arguing for 12 years, since I have
been elected, that in my District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the
largest community, which is now the eighth largest community out of the 200-plus
municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, doesn't have a complete education
system.
We had
an elementary school chocked to the rafters, beyond exploding, 450 people – 790
in it with cubicles all over the parking lots. We have since negotiated and got built a beautiful junior high school;
massive; 650 kids in it; state of the art and beyond. Now busting at the seams.
Argued, lobbied back and forth with the Minister of Education, at the school
district and all of that, and in this budget, which I think nobody thought
because
there didn't seem to be any indication there would be investment in the school
system infrastructure there but I give credit, vision was seen. In communities
that are growing, communities that need it, why would you not have an
all-inclusive, complete education system?
So
happy to see phase one will start – the design, the site location. That is what
we talk about in Newfoundland and Labrador, just a complete education system.
Now it doesn't mean every community is going to have three schools in there but
it means, within a decent range, you are going to have access to quality
schools, where you have a lab and a gymnasium and these types of things.
So
we have come a long way and I am fortunate enough, during my reign on that side
when we were in government or our part, we built nearly 30 schools and I am glad
to see there are three more that will start this process. But I think we are
almost at a point now where that is maxed out. We have provided good services to
everybody; people are going to have state of the art. There will always be
improvements to school system. But now we need that whole, complete process and
it might mean changing how our busing system works so people can have access to
it; or using virtual education to let people have access to courses that they
normally would; or if you can't recruit a teacher that has a specific skill,
there are other ways of doing it. So we like that.
Helping parents get ahead – accept $10 daycare. Wonderful. Challenge – and I
will say in my district, I have six daycares. They are busting. We need an
ability to be able to get more day cares. The Minister of Education knows
because, on a daily basis, I am sending him emails from people from my district
and there has been meetings set up with people representing the day care
centres, finding ways to be able to make sure that those who need it – $10 is
great but if you can't find a seat or an after-school program in this, we need
to be able to find an infrastructure way to do it. So we outlined some of that.
I
am glad to see there is movement. That is why I am saying, we don't have a
monopoly on this. We never ever had. These are things that other people have
been talking about and other parties have already put in place.
Standing up for our energy industry and jobs – well, you know the debate we have
had here for the last year and a half: Terra Nova, Bay du Nord; all the other
ones that were there; Hibernia to keep continuing to more forward. So we want to
make sure that this industry is very viable and very important to us. I
understand the green energy and all of these things in the environment, but this
is something that is going to be with us for generations. Why would we not
maximize the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly, when
are cognizant of the environment and the ethical work of our workers and the
safety of them versus any other jurisdiction in this world of ours?
We
will find a way and we will use that money to transition to other industries
when it is appropriate. And the ability means those industries are going to be
successful too. Whatever they may be, things in the fishing industry, other
types of industries that may be very viable also.
You
know, making Muskrat Falls work, we have talked about that. I applaud it and I
said it before, the
mitigation deal, we probably would have done things a bit differently; we would
have demanded a few more things from Ottawa, but the fact that we're going to be
able to stay at 14.7, which is what we had outlined in our Blue Book, would be a
sustainable, affordable level of hydroelectric power for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So
that's what we're talking about here: creating clean, green jobs. We're talking
about that. Investments in that. I know there are parts of it in the budget here
and I understand while it's a priority, it's probably not an immediate priority,
and I get why. Because the immediate priority is people's health care, the
economy itself, naturally, the cost of living.
But
there are some things here – and I say this because it might be some things to
look at that you may already be doing, there may be some things here that you
want to look at, that you can enhance, or maybe things you can say, we can
modify that. Or it might be something you say no, no, no. We tried that and it
wouldn't work. Tell us that, too, because when we put this out again, we want to
make sure that it's fluent enough that it will work for the people of this
province.
More
mining jobs – what's happening is we've had the privilege as a caucus to meet
with a couple of Central Newfoundland mining companies, and what's potentially
happening in the gold industry could be the next – we talk about transitioning.
Newfoundland and Labrador, we're transitioning on a daily basis. Transitioning
doesn't necessarily mean you go from one industry to another, it means you
transition even within that industry – the mining industry, which was
traditionally based on ore.
I know,
coming from a mining community, what is happening in Labrador, and what went on
in Buchans and all these places, but now we're transitioning into all kinds of
other minerals. What we're doing in Labrador, you know, with Inco and all these
things. So that's one thing, we have got to be cognizant that our mining
industry needs to still be front and centre with all of our other key industries
as we look at that.
Growing
our fishery industry and making it sustainable – and my colleague had talked
about the sealing industry. There are two sides to what he's talking about; one,
it's the impact the seals are having on the fishing industry, the detrimental
effect, but it's also that we know, and we've been promoting it and trying to,
along with a number of other people – I would suspect Members over there are too
– that the sealing industry itself is an industry. Finding the markets, finding
the value of the meat and every product there, if it's giving to third-world
countries for sustainability.
Whatever
it is that can be done to help, not only employment in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but if we can help other people globally, why wouldn't we do it? While
at the same time we know, if the sealing industry is vibrant, then we're also
doing something environmentally to benefit our fishing industry. So there's a
balance here of being able to do things like that.
Healthy
forests and sustainable ecosystems, which means more jobs. Don't forget, the
global downturn on newsprint, and I think somebody told me there were 25 mills
across North America that's closed. Kruger managed to survive, and I give credit
to the industry out there, the individuals, the unions themselves, monies that
both governments – I know, I was there. I know what we put in; I know the
support on that side. We might be at a point now where maybe we've weathered the
storm. Maybe there's an ability now for that mill to even expand beyond what it
normally does, because the market out there now may be shrunk, but the
competition has dramatically shrunk. So there may be some things there.
So how
do we encourage that and keep working with the industry people, particularly
with the Kruger family and the management out to the mill? I had a great look at
the mill, and still see, while parts of it look like it did 50 years ago, some
of the technology in there is second to none, and I know they're still
investing. So maybe we keep moving that forward.
We keep
the jobs that that creates in Western and Central Newfoundland in the forest
industry. I mean people forget about that. People forget about the truckers that
benefit from this. They forget about the loggers that benefit. They forget about
all the other amenities, support services. We're talking millions and millions
and hundreds of millions of dollars that come from an industry that we thought
basically was almost dormant, but it isn't. So we need to be able to find a way
to keep moving that.
Agriculture: We forget about that, and that's our sustainability. That and the
fishery is what brought Newfoundland and Labrador to where it is, what kept us
alive. There's an ability to do that very much so. So why don't we continue to
do that? I know there are programs and services out there, and I know just in my
part of the district, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's is always an agricultural area,
and I know it's expanding. Bell Island, we've got a group of five farmers who've
come together and now we're working with them to try to find ways to expand what
they'd doing. So agriculture in areas like that that are remote and isolated
areas, imagine what we can do in the areas that we're used to, the West Coast,
for example, in agriculture. Let's keep promoting that and moving that to the
next level.
Revitalizing tourism: I felt so bad for tourism the last two years. Absolutely
nothing anybody could do. There was nothing we could do. I know, part of my
district, Bell Island, perhaps one of the top 10 tourism attractions, but it was
decimated, literally. Will they survive? Yeah, I give credit. Some supports from
different levels of government, some creativity on being able to keep stuff
afloat. This could be our year to revitalize it. The Come Home Year, accept
that. It's there to go. Now we have to make sure it works.
I know
we've had some discussions with the Minister of Service NL about the
transportation industry here, the taxi industry. We're getting closer to solving
some of the challenges that may be part of it. We know the airline industry – I
give credit that the airports themselves now are getting ready. I happened to be
in two in the last couple of weeks and talked to their managers, and they're
getting prepared for what needs to be done here. They're getting prepared for
meeting the needs of tourists and being able to make it an engaging, attractive
visit for them.
There
are going to be some challenges, but, I think, before the real crux – we have a
month to really figure what they are and address it. I know car rentals are an
issue. I'm travelling out of the province for a few days later on and there is
no difference from other places. We just have to find creative ways. I know
we're working with companies to make that happen, so I'm hoping we can fix some
of the wrinkles and get everything in play. So we compliment everybody in the
industry for doing what has to be done to make that happen.
Unlocking Labrador's potential: We know what the Big Land has to offer from
every perspective. We know that 100 per cent, but we also know that we need to
do it collaboratively with the people of Labrador, with Indigenous communities
there. It has to be a balance of engagement by all and a buy-in by all. But the
potential in that land for economic development, for cultural development, for
our promotions of who we are is enormous. So we need to maximize that and make
that work, and that comes with collaboration, it comes with supporting each
other as we work towards that.
Achieving equality for women: We've had quite a debate in this House in the only
two months that we've been here and that has to be front and centre. I know we
need to do it, find ways to engage more females into politics, but it's about
equality. Equality can be very standard if we all accept it and breakdown any
barriers that are there. I know the discussion here has been about it. I know
there are organizations here and I know there's been great strides made to try
to do that. But we need to continue to do it. It can't be on some of the things
that we criticize government; it can't be five- or 10-year plans. It has to be
immediate plans. There has to be immediate interventions to ensure that it all
works across the board.
Protecting the most vulnerable: I would suspect every person who stood up on
either side of this House have talked about the most vulnerable. There are those
who are in need, financially, who are vulnerable health-wise and who are
seniors, who for years, have contributed to our society; who've given us
everything to help make Newfoundland and Labrador what it is today so we need to
find ways. If it's special needs adults or children. If it's certain things that
are needed in our society, we need to make that happen for them.
Learning
from COVID: We did a great job. I think, collectively, we did a great job. We
were in unchartered territory. I remember first when this broke there was six of
us sat in the Premier's boardroom and we had no idea. We looked at Dr.
Fitzgerald as if to say guide us. I know she was learning the process, too, from
here colleagues across the country and around the world. But we managed to
maneuver through it.
I know
there are some challenges now; it's unfortunate. At this end of it, when we
thought we were getting over it, it becomes the most vulnerable who are being
affected the most, physically. Unfortunately, we're losing more people than we
would have ever expected or hoped. So it's a learning curve. We need to find
ways to prepare for it. We've outlined things here that would be beneficial,
that if we ever run into that again, that we're prepared in advance. Being
proactive versus reactive.
Better
health access for better health outcomes. Every day we talk about it here, every
night we hear from people. We have to find a way to provide the proper health
care in a timely fashion that people need so that we're going to get the
outcomes that we need in this province, which includes access to medical
interventions right away, access to emergency processes and access to
assessments in a timely fashion so that the outcomes are better, which means
people become more productive. And do you know what it means from an economic
point of view? While we may spend more money on the front end, we're going to
save twice that on the back end and provide a better quality of life for the
people of this province.
Reinvigorating municipalities: I know there's a lot of discussion here about
regionalization. I see the value of that discussion. I do say, and I know my
colleagues over here have said it, there's not a one-size-fits-all concept here.
We've had conversations with the Federation of Municipalities, we've had it with
the municipal administrators and we've had some real good discussion about how
it could work. I do acknowledge the minister and the roundtables that she's been
having across the province, because engagement is where you're going to solve
the problems.
We, in
this House, know a little bit about a few things; the people out there know a
lot about everything related to them. So we need to engage them, find a solution
that works, find how we provide services that better fit the needs of a
particular region and that the taxpayers can afford. There's not one taxpayer
that's willing to pay more taxes for less services and it's not somebody else
who doesn't pay any taxes now, willing to pay any taxes for no services.
So it's
that balance. But I'm confident that there is a balance out there, and the
process that is put in place and the engagement, we'll find that. We outline
some of the recommendations here. I'm happy to see some of them are already
being enacted by your administration. So well done there.
Cleaning
up corruption. We've talked about that when it comes to issues in our society
around tenders, bidding and some of the other issues, that we need things here
that reflect the people have faith in what we do, that everything is transparent
and open. And that's very easy to do; we've all adopted that here. We've signed
documents around minimizing impact on people, about harassment, about
transparency and accountability. Now we have to live up to it. And we have to
then ask the rest of society to live up to it. It is the business community,
nationally, internationally and particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador
because we're all part of it, we all benefit when that happens.
Last but
not least, our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Again, and I said it before, we can't spend frivolously. We can't waste money.
We need to do due diligence. We need to actually anticipate, when we can, what
will be the reaction or the outcome if we do this. Sometimes it makes sense, and
I will acknowledge that we talk about the cataract surgery on the West Coast. I
personally believe if we invested $1 million or $2 million now, we would save
tens of millions down the road by having that issue out of the way, having those
patients that are backlogged now get back to their quality of life. It would
also help eliminate some other potential medical issues that are attached to it
and at the end of it they are more productive, they are more engaged. We are
going to save money.
Now, I know to spend that money you have got to have
it. So we have got to find creative ways to generate that particular amount of
money to address issues that save us money on the back end.
We
are talking about fiscal responsibility, and again we will criticize some of the
contracts that have been let. We will criticize some of the consultants that are
in. I would hope at the end of it what comes out of it is the benefit. I have no
qualms or no problems if we spend money upfront, but I'm convinced and we are
convinced that we are going to gain either a better quality of services or we
are going to financially save money or make the right decision.
So
on that note, I want to say this subamendment that my colleague brought in is
about us getting our fair share in this Confederation. If we get our fair share
and we equitably work together and collaboratively work together and I mean
together – all citizens, all businesses, all of the entities in this province –
Newfoundland and Labrador has a bright future and the people of this province
will be proud to be here. They will encourage their expats to come here and they
will encourage immigration to this great province of ours.
But
to do that, we need to first have a proper debate and understand exactly what
the intent of this budget is and be open that there are gaps. We have identified
them because the people have identified them to us. Find ways to rectify those
gaps in services. Make sure that the people get what they need in this province
and the people have faith in the people of this House of Assembly so that we
have a bright future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that and I look forward to further debate on the
budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate another good opportunity to stand up in this House and represent the
District of Ferryland; it's certainly a great privilege.
I
was going to start on the seal fishery tonight. The last time I spoke on the
seal fishery, relevance came up so I'm going to get away with it tonight, but I
don't know if I want to follow my colleague from Bonavista because he
articulated pretty well. I don't know how I could touch on it any better, but I
will certainly give it a little chance.
I
live in a town in Bay Bulls. Thirty years ago, if you saw a seal down by the
wharf that was a big issue, a big thing. I don't think they saw it that evening,
he would be gone; somebody went down and shot him. No question about it, it
happened.
You
drive up through Renews right now, and I'm trying to tide in – you know, one
time, you didn't see them; now you see them everywhere. Drive up to Renews at
low tide and there are 50 seals sitting on a rock in the sunshine. And they
aren't going to McDonald's to get something to eat. They're coming in up the
rivers and they're eating the salmon, and they're eating the fish and they're
eating the capelin.
So we
realistically have to do something about the seals in this area. There's no
question. I look at the minister and he's talking about a billion-dollar
industry; it's great. No question about it, it's a billion-dollar industry. But
what we as Fisheries departments for the last 30 years have done to generate
that is nothing. Federally does it – the fishermen go out and catch it; what do
we do provincially for it? It all happens. We take credit for it, but we don't
do anything more to develop it. Because we don't have any say in it.
And
that's our problem. And it's not his problem, but I bet you on this side if we
had to start a seal harvest, that the Opposition here would definitely back you
100 per cent if you went to Ottawa to do something with the seals in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it's a big issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
It just wouldn't survive. I
went to Chance Cove last year during COVID, had to go for a walk, you go out and
you go down in Chance Cove up in between Trepassey and down in Cappahayden, and
walk down there, and I'm going to say in June or July, you see three or four
seals bobbing up and down in the water. You do the same up in Cappahayden, the
same – you never seen them. Now it's a big issue in all the districts.
I grew
up in a fishing community. In 1992, July 2 – it was my birthday – that's when
the fishery was announced and shut down. I was 26. So it was on my birthday; you
wouldn't forget it, for sure. We live in an industry – when we were there then –
so there were four boys in the family, and my mother and father. We were all
affected by the fishery when it shut down – everybody. We're still going today;
we're not going to lie down and die. We're going to keep going, we're going to
figure things out, we're going to move on to something else, and that's what we
did.
I worked
in the fish plant and 6 in the evening, you wanted to go play softball, I
couldn't go. We were working; that's what we had to do. I said to my mom: I'm
not going to be at this for a living, because I want to go play softball. I'm
not staying in the fish plant to go working. Eventually we did that and we moved
on, but there were six people in one household that was affected.
We're
still living in the area, and we moved on. Right now, there is no fish plant in
Bay Bulls – none, nothing there, gone. Now it's oil. Right now we've got the rig
in Bay Bulls, just sitting there; I think it's going to go offshore in the next
week or two. I'm not sure of the exact date, I'm sure somebody on the other side
knows when it's going to move, but it's up there now and it's lit up in the
harbour. It's a beautiful sight to see, if you ever drive up there, last night
with a little bit of fog settling down on her. It's just so nice for the area,
just to see that there.
And
that's only sitting there yet. That's not gone to work yet. That's going to do
some drilling, going to drill a couple of wells, supposedly. Just in the port in
Bay Bulls, there are boats in there the last two or three weeks – my brother
works down there now. They're hauling chain aboard that boat that's going
offshore to Hibernia, and it's going to wherever it needs to go. But just
speaking to the tourism – and they're going to benefit, too. They have an oil
rig in the harbour and how often do you to sail by an oil rig, for the next week
or two, that you can do on a boat tour and go sail by an oil rig and be able to
see it sitting there in the harbour? It's pretty spectacular to see. Last week I
think they lowered it 40 feet down, so it's up in the air and they lowered it 40
feet down.
We were
speaking to somebody the other night and they were talking about how did they
get it over here. Did they tow it over? They didn't realize that it drove over
itself. It floated over here and it maneuvered over here to – people brought it
here. It didn't get towed here; it actually moves on its own. People thought
that it all got towed here from Norway or wherever it was at the time. But
again, it's great for the industry.
Speaking
to, as I said earlier, tourism, the person there in the harbour, he's bringing
people back and forth to the oil rig, along with the people that own the marine
terminal there, plus there's another boat that's bringing people back and forth.
Speaking to the gentleman that has the tourism there, he said that for every job
that's offshore, there's probably four or five spinoff jobs. He told me it might
be not even as little as that, it might be way more than that, but there are at
least four of five spinoff jobs for every job that's off there, just based on
that. I said, wow, you're thinking about that, and it's a big number.
It
started on the seal fishery, then to the regular fishery and now we're off to
oil and gas, all in one community. So it certainly can happen, and things can
certainly change.
I'd like
to touch a little bit on the roads in my district. I've certainly done it on
petitions, along the way, touched on Witless Bay Line and spoke to the minister
on different occasions about paving, ditching and brush cutting. I look at one
area in St. Shott's and it's called the Irish Loop. It goes right around and
joins the whole loop – absolutely beautiful. It will be well travelled again
this year when the whales come up in St. Vincent's. It's a big thing now that
you can drive and look at the whales instead of having to get in a boat. I mean,
it's blocked up there. But the road in that area – I had it marked here – it's
36 years since that road has been done up there. So to see the condition – and
everybody have roads in their district, I do realize that, but it is a part of
the Irish Loop and we'd love to see that to be completed somewhere along the way
here. I get so many calls on that area – so many calls.
People,
when they leave either Trepassey or St. Shott's, they don't drive down the shore
a lot of times, they drive down the Salmonier Line because the roads are way
better over in the Liberal district than they are in the PC district right now,
and I'd like to see that changed. But it is what it is, and we will get our
share somewhere along the way I'm sure, and you have a budget that you have to
keep to, but
we would love to see that in our area get completed.
Because we have got so much tourism there. You have got Mistaken Point down in
Portugal Cove South that's a real big industry. I just spoke to a gentleman –
probably a couple of weeks ago – and he has got 300 or 400 bookings already for
this year. That's only probably four or five, five or six years ago that that
was claimed as a UNESCO site. I think it was five or six years ago.
It
is going to be a big tourism area for sure, but you hear people in the area
saying that they come up here with campers and trailers and you tow them along.
They tell people in the district when they are in these convenience stores or
Foodlands, wherever it may be,
that they don't know if they would come back because the conditions of the road.
When they are saying that then, they are not passing that on to people that they
talk to as encouraging them to go to that area. That's a big tourist area that
we need to work on.
Again, they suffered so much during COVID – all tourism. In Bay Bulls,
we had two boat tour operations and they combined one week – and then they both
had employees. So they didn't have enough visitors and most of their visitors, I
am going to say, 90 or 95 per cent are from out of province. So to rely on
people from the local area to go – They had, again, people working and I don't
know how many people they have got working each, but they are trying to get
employment for all of these people to be able to get EI when they are finished
after October. So they combined. One week it would be one boat tour and the next
week it would be the other boat tour. So they sort of made it work during COVID,
which was good to see and I'm pretty sure they will probably be doing their own
thing this year if it all goes well with Come Home Year. So we are looking
forward to that as well in the area.
I'll touch on electric vehicles because I came from the car industry. I
spoke to someone the other day dealing with vehicles. She is selling vehicles in
one of the dealerships. I won't say where and it is not where I worked. She said
there is three electric vehicles coming in before the end of the year – three.
Plus it is hard to get a vehicle right now. We all know that because of the
computer chips and all of that – three vehicles. I know there are rebates out
there. I never asked the cost of these vehicles. I can guarantee you and I hear
some advertisements on the radio – the minimum, when I was at it, was $40,000.
That was the minimum.
It was nice to say you could do it but once I drove to Bay Bulls and
back, you had better plug it in. I think the range was 250 kilometres. So to
offer these rebates to the low income to try to get away from oil, yes, I see
that is certainly a good plan. It is just hard to understand for these people to
get from oil to go to electric or go to heat pumps or go to mini-splits in their
house and as one of
the Members said here today, to get a $5,000 rebate it's going to cost you
$20,000.
I had a
person in Bay Bulls – I was driving on my ATV with a helmet on – I stopped and
spoke to buddy, he said to me, you know, it's going to cost him $20,000. He
couldn't do it. He just couldn't do it. It's not affordable for him. He's
retired now. He said he just cannot afford to do it. So at some point in time
people are going to be forced to do it, because they're going to be forced out,
this is not going to happen the next couple of years. I'm going to say it's
going to take 30 to 40 years.
The way
it's going now, I mean, it's going to go quicker than that, I hope, but it's not
just going to stop overnight. You look at people that are using chainsaws and
lawnmowers. Yes, you can get them all electric, but they're not readily
available yet. I'm sure that it will come. But a fellow with a chainsaw, he's
going to need about six kilometres of extension cord to go in the woods to cut a
bit of wood. I mean, it makes no sense. It just don't make any sense.
But
we're going to get there. It's going to take time. Again, in Fermeuse and up in
Trepassey, they both have electric charging stations right now, so that's where
it's going to be. But that's reality. I mean, people are talking about it. You
see fellas in cutting wood and you see fellas in driving Ski-Doos and driving
bikes, I don't know that's a long ways off to me.
Yes,
we've got to get there, and I agree with it. I do my part. I've been doing my
part since the kids were in school; I've been recycling bottles and they haven't
touched them. They started in kindergarten. They wanted to recycle bottles. I've
been doing it ever since. It's something that we've done, you recycle as much as
you can and compost and do all that stuff. So it's all good for the environment,
for sure. But you've always got people that are never going to adapt to it and
that's the way it goes.
I'd like
to touch again on the cyberattack and on the election; it's all tied together.
You know, we look at the cyberattack and our own security and our own personal
information being out there, all right? I'm trying to tie it in to the election
that we had. Like, right now, we're here talking about the election and you're
trying to vote online and not having the people to go out and go do it, but be
able to vote online. They said no, it can't happen, personal information. Well,
do you know what? We had personal information when we were in the hospitals and
they could do it.
But I
can't see how we can't make a voting system that you can vote online. We can do
– what?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Well, we can't afford right
now the cost of living but we still have to do it. We have to get to it. So the
same as electric vehicles, we've got to get to it. We can't afford to.
Do you
know what? We had a cyberattack in the hospitals and our personal information –
mine wasn't, but there's personal information that was gone. It's the same
thing. We've got to get to it. The same as we're getting to – I'll touch on
motor vehicle with the licence plates, another issue. We have people that – and
I've touched on this before, plate to vehicle should happen here. It's a big
investment to change that system, according to the minister, and we've had that
discussion the last couple of years. But it's something that should happen. You
have to make that investment.
Again,
you invested $600,000 for NASCAR, which is a great idea and it's going to be a
spinoff of whatever, it's a great idea. I think he said a spinoff of $5.4
million, which great investment during Come Home Year. Not everybody is into
NASCAR and you're going to get people that are going to be critical of it, so be
it. There are never going to be 100 per cent of ideas that people are going to
accept, but it is what it is.
We have
to get to a plate to a vehicle and make that happen. That's something that
should happen in this province, because we have people that will go in and buy a
car, not in dealerships, but privately and never take the registration off and
go and get fines. They have $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 worth of fines and they go
out and start all over again with another car, when they get caught. That's how
it works because you don't take your plate off the car; the plate goes with the
car. If you had it the other way, then so be it.
Touching
on the cost of living, I had a letter from a constituent today. This is where
it's to in regard to – I'm sure that all you people here and all MHAs are
getting letters from constituents. She said: I know you're not a Member of the
Liberal government, but as an MHA I would like to address rising fuel prices.
Seniors in their own homes heated by furnaces soon won't be able to afford to
keep their homes. The cost to fill our tank now is $2,000 to fill an oil tank.
Less than two years ago, it was $800 to $900. And they were accepting $800 or
$900, which still wasn't cheap. How can a couple just receiving CPP and OAS
afford this? We still have our power bill, our cable bill, our house insurance,
our car insurance, our car payment, groceries, gas for our car, municipal taxes,
et cetera, to pay.
I think
we're out of touch. We've said that before. I listened to the Member from Bell
Island speak and being very cordial about you have certain budgets that you have
to do, but if we wanted to raise revenue, you rise the gas taxes five cents;
you'd see it in the budget, gas tax go up five cents, beer goes up $1. Well, why
can't you drop gas by 10 cents or 20 cents? Why can't you do that?
It's
something that should be looked at. If you wanted to raise your revenue, yes,
you go out and say we're going to raise beer $1, or cigarettes $1, no questions
asked and don't matter who's smoking them, they're going up, or who's drinking
them, they're going up, but you can't take it off gas. It's just hard for people
to understand.
This is
the one issue that you're seeing in the public today. Everywhere you go people
are talking about fuel prices. It's affecting every single person. You talk
about $141 million and it's a balance in and out, but it's not a balance in
their pocket. They're not feeling that – when they came out of the budget,
they're not feeling $141 million in their pocket. They're not feeling $1 in
their pocket. It's coming out; it's not going in.
She
says: It's hard enough on all the residents of the province to deal with the
rising costs, but with the income our seniors are having in each month is more
difficult. It's time for the government to act now and look out for our seniors.
Is that
the first time somebody mentioned that in the last week? You sit over there and
– and this is a budget debate – haven't been much debate on the other side about
this budget, you must be happy with it totally. You must be totally happy with
it.
Not one
person has got up and spoke. Not one. I know you're not going to get up and
criticize your budget, but you can get up and talk about your district. It's
just unbelievable that we've got a budget debate and not one person has gotten
up on the other side and spoke about it.
This is
last year, during the election: OAS, $615; CPP, $634; that equals $1,249. Heat,
$300; drugs, $400; shelter, $600; gas, $100; $50 for cell; and $100
miscellaneous; leaves him with $59 for the month. And that was last year, before
the price of fuel went up. That is the normal, common people that voted us in
and we cannot get here and figure this out. Somehow we have to help these people
get some relief. They're looking for some relief. They're not looking to get a
pile of money. They're looking for some relief at the pumps.
We
cannot seem to get there; heads down, not acknowledging it. The only time they
acknowledge it is when we say something that you don't agree with and really get
out of your minds and start to argue back and we'll talk back and forth. But
we've got to start doing something about this. Somehow, we have to start doing
something about this.
We're
after giving out enough examples that I don't have to go back and touch on them.
Sugar
tax: Who knows what that's going to be in September? The problem is right now
the people don't even know there's a sugar tax coming. They know that we voted
on it last year. They don't know it's coming. It's going to come in September
and guaranteed that's when it's going to hit the fan. That's when they're going
to realize it's the same as they're saying, well, you're not out on the cost of
living, you're not out on the price of fuel. We've been out on that for months.
It's not
like when the budget came down we came out on it; we've been out at that for
months. The Member for Stephenville - Port au Port has been out on that a number
of times. When somebody says to me, you know, you're not out on it; we've been
out on it a lot. We just don't seem to be touching or hitting the right spots to
be able to change or just help the people out. That's what we're looking for.
That is what – all the stuff in the budget, there's not much other stuff that we
didn't agree with. Again, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island
touched on it and he agreed: revenues, expenses and all that.
We
haven't beat up the budget but we have beat up on the cost of living and health
care, the two things that we have touched on, and we haven't had any
acknowledgement that we are going to try to fix that problem.
What is it that we don't get, on the other side, to help the people of the
province? What is it that we don't understand? Listen, you are getting the
calls. You cannot tell me you're not getting the calls. You are absolutely
getting the calls. Sometimes you sit over there and you nod and agree, and I
know you got to agree. But somehow we have to help these people. They are not
looking for anything else right now other than a break on the prices of gas.
I
filled up my vehicle the other day and it was $120. Last year, let's say it was
$1 a litre – a little over a $1 – it has doubled in price. We didn't get any
increases and nor did anybody else, most times, get any increases. So you have
got $60 extra just on one fill-up.
We
are here talking about the registration of a vehicle – I am running out of time
now. Registration of vehicle is cut in half, $80 – well, guess what? That is one
fill-up. The gas is up now for the last two months. So we have to be able to
help the people of the province, just to get the price of fuel somehow – do
something with the price of fuel. Let's figure something out or go do something
to figure that out.
I
am out of time now.
Thank you so much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you very much, I say to the Member.
Next speaker, the hon. the Member for District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is great to have another opportunity to speak. I guess this will be my last
opportunity now on the budget. Of course, we do have, I think, a loan act and
maybe another money bill that we have to look forward to and I certainly look
forward to many more opportunities when that happens.
Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about the budget. Look, we all realize where we are, I
think, financially as a province. I don't envy the government. If you look at
our year-over-year deficits, if you look at our provincial debt – I had a
briefing this morning with officials in Finance. I believe $17.2 billion is our
net debt. I think that is the number. That is not including, of course, all of
the unfunded liabilities, pensions and so on, which bring that number way, way
higher of course. But $17.2 billion would it be.
I
think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador realize that is not sustainable. I
think we all in this House of Assembly realize that is not sustainable. We
understand, I think, that some things are going to have to change and we are
going to have to find better ways of doing things. We are going to have to find
more efficient ways of doing things. We are going to have to find ways of saving
some money and tackling that debt.
There are a number of
ways we can do it. Making cuts and finding efficiencies is certainly one way of
doing it, but increasing revenues is another. I have to say, the spirit and
intent of this subamendment talks about our relationship with Ottawa. I listened
to the Leader of the Official Opposition and I agree with him 100 per cent, as
it relates to that. I agree with him pretty much 100 per cent on everything he
said. I thought he did an absolutely fabulous job, to be honest with you. I
really do. He hit the nail on the head on pretty much everything – very
professional. He offered solutions. He offered his perspective. It's not just
about complaining; it's about here's what we would do and so on.
I think
it's a refreshing approach, an approach we haven't seen necessarily over the
last few years over here, but with him at the helm I have to say that it is very
refreshing. I think he's doing a great job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
Now, Speaker, he talks about
our relationship with Ottawa. That is a challenging one. I do agree, I think
it's fine to say, if you're on the government side, we're going to leverage our
relationship and our good relations with our friends in Ottawa, our cousins in
Ottawa, whatever the case might be, and I understand that approach.
I also
understand the approach if we go too far the other way, we saw what happened
when we started taking down flags and referring to the prime minister by his
first name and so on. It felt good at the time. I was there at the time and I
was cheering it on, I admit. I was proud, on that bandwagon cheering it on. Way
to go, shag you, Steve. I was there. But we did pay a price. We did pay a price,
no doubt about it in my mind. In the end, we did.
So it is
a tricky balance of how hard is too hard. How much sugar or honey do you use as
opposed to using the big stick? Personally, I think that trying to use a
diplomatic approach, certainly on the onset, is where we should be. But if we
don't get the action that we require, that's when I think it's important that we
– not necessarily take it too far. We don't have to rude and disruptive. We
don't need to start tearing down Canadian flags, but I think we have to be more
assertive and more firm in our approach. I think there has to be a more united
approach.
The fact
that the Leader of the Official Opposition would say – I would join with him and
I'm sure the NDP and the other independents will all agree that we would
certainly be on board in a united front. I don't care who goes to Ottawa; it
doesn't matter to me, but I would sign on to that concept. Whether I'm part of
it, I'm there or not, I would certainly sign on to that concept that we really
need to, as a group, come together and try to leverage more funds from Ottawa;
what I would certainly consider our fair share, which we're not getting. I will
agree with the Official Opposition.
Members
over there may not want to say it, I get that. You've got to be careful what you
say, and who you might peeve off. I understand that. But I think deep down
inside you know what we're saying over here is right. I really believe you know
that to be true. And it's a challenge. Because we have seven seats. It is what
it is; it's politics. Our system under this federation, while it's a great
country and it works in many ways, the reality of it is that small provinces do
not necessarily fare well in this particular set-up.
Because
we have seven seats. And those seven Members, whoever they are, regardless of
political stripe, it does not matter. There are seven, and they are sitting
across the table from 100, or 100 and some-odd from Ontario, and another 70, 80
from Quebec, or whatever the number is, against seven. So it doesn't matter.
Stripe doesn't matter. This is not about Liberal versus PC versus NDP. This is
about seven seats in Newfoundland up against central Canada. That's the
challenge we face.
And it's
not an easy challenge; that's why we haven't seen any significant movement on
Marine Atlantic; that's why. The Minister of Immigration made his political
bones, I would say, Mr. Speaker, on the
Open Line every other week talking about Marine Atlantic. I agreed with what
he was saying. But he did. It was the challenge of the number of seats that we
have compared to the number of seats on the Mainland. Quebec has a lot of seats,
so they have that political piece going for them. And of course they always love
to play the separation card, and Canada folds every single time – every single
time.
I would
suggest we probably would have gotten a much better deal on the Upper Churchill,
even, back in Smallwood's day, only for the fact if the federal government at
the time had the guts to say we're putting a national corridor through here and
you can't block it. I don't care if you like it or not. That's what they should
have done, if they were looking after the best interests of the country, but
they kowtowed to Quebec. The tail wagged the dog, and the tail continues to wag
the dog. That's the reality of what we're up against.
There
are no easy answers, but I do agree that we are not receiving – in as far as I'm
concerned – our fair share. When we look at the fact that Quebec have all these
surpluses and they're getting all this money from the Upper Churchill and so on,
and their own rivers, and their revenues are just flowing in. They have the best
kind of programs, topnotch, and they're just flush with cash and then they're
still getting transfers from Ottawa. Here we are struggling. We have people
struggling to survive. We have a huge shortage of family doctors. We have
problems in long-term care. We have problems in tertiary care. We have problems
in home care. We have problems with ambulance services, transportation, roads
and infrastructure, ferry services, you name it. We've got huge issues in this
province because of the size, the geography and, of course, how the communities
are laid out all throughout that geography.
It is
unique. You cannot compare that to a city like Toronto where you have millions
of people all together in high-rise buildings and so on, and you have that
density where, when the money flows in there, they're able to do so much more.
That's not the reality that we have. I would suggest we're more like a
territory, arguably, than we are a province. As a matter of fact, it's
interesting. When we receive funds from Ottawa, some of these programs that come
out for infrastructure and so on, we fall under the rural category actually.
Money that's coming to St. John's, Mount Pearl and CBS, we're considered rural
under the federal programs.
So
arguably, we should be treated more like a territory, recognizing our issues and
our geography, but we're not. We need to fight for that – we need to fight for
that. I'm not saying that ministers and people over there are not talking to the
prime minister when they get a chance, or raising it with the federal Finance
minister, or raising it with the minister of Health, federally. I'm not saying
that you're not doing that. But obviously, nothing has changed.
Again,
I'm not saying we go back to tearing down Canadian flags, but I do think this is
such an important issue for our province, for our fiscal sustainability as a
province, for the people who we represent, that this is an issue where all
parties and non-parties should come together in a united front to look at ways
that we can be lobbying the federal government together. And who is on that
team, who's the one who is actually having the meetings, doesn't matter to me, I
don't care. But represented with the blessing of all of us, and the people, to
look for more because we need more. We need help. We really do.
We're
talking about trying to reach a balanced budget by 2025, I think. Before that it
was 2021 and now it's 2025, any little glitch that happens, that could be thrown
off to 2027 and 2030 and so on. That's just to balance the budget. That's not
doing anything to deal with the debt. That debt is there; we're still going to
paying a billion dollars a year, whatever it is we pay on debt servicing. We pay
more on debt servicing than we do on education. So that doesn't even touch that.
This is
growing. From now until 2025, we're going to just add to that bill. So we do
need some help, and there's no silver bullet that's going to come from the oil
industry – that God for Bay du Nord, that it did get approved. Disgusted by the
fact of how that went, that we had to be waiting on pins and needles. You talk
about our relationship with Ottawa, that was another one, but thank God it did
go through. It's going to be helpful, but it's not going to save us. It's not
going to deal with that huge debt that we have, and it's not going to
necessarily deal with all our health issues and education issues and everything
else, but I think it is a step in the right direction.
But we
do need to do things. We do need to work together with Ottawa to try to bring in
some more revenue into the province. I think that has to be part, at least, of
the solution. Also, we obviously have to try to grow our industries and we've
heard it talked about here in the House of Assembly, time and time again, the
opportunity as it relates to IT, as an example, opportunities to grow tourism
and great opportunities to grow our fishery. Some nice to hear the Member for
Bonavista and the Member for Ferryland raised as well and talked about our
fishery.
I think
it's the first time I've heard fishery – no, I've heard the Member for Bonavista
raise fishery before, but other than that I haven't heard the word fish in this
House. The former Member of Cape St. Francis, he used to bring it up, but very,
very little mention of the fishery, and that's what brought our people here. The
fishery is a billion-dollar industry, but maybe it could be a $2 billion, maybe
it could be $3 billion. What's happening with the seals is ridiculous. That's
another one that goes back to our relationship with Ottawa. That's another one.
It's
absolutely ridiculous what's happening, and the fishery impacts us all. It's not
just rural Newfoundland; it's the lifeblood of many communities in rural
Newfoundland. I've said in this House before, go through Donovans Business Park
and start looking at the businesses there and ask yourself which ones have
connections to the fishery, in terms of supplies, service and everything else.
There's an awful lot.
If the
fishery shut down in full tomorrow, there'd be a bunch of empty buildings over
in Donovans, and there would be a number of businesses that a good part of their
business would be chopped off. If they could survive and find something else,
who knows. But it would. So there are opportunities there, but again it comes
down to our relationship with the federal government, and we need to come
together to address – I think it's a huge issue for us.
Speaker,
I've got about five minutes or so; I want to just branch off into a different
subject now. I want to talk about, for a moment, the whole concept of openness
and transparency. I was part of the PC government at the time, when infamous
Bill 29 was brought in to this House. I can remember there was a filibuster. I
can remember Members on the opposite side – I think there was the Minister of
Energy and the Member for Bay of Islands that were with the Liberals at the
time. Nobody else is left there now.
But I
can remember them on the other side, with all the pieces of paper, everything
blacked out, telling us day after day what a disaster Bill 29 was. I remember
the filibuster, and I can remember when that filibuster was over and the vote
happened, and after listening to the debate and everything, I remember looking
over to my colleague to my right, I believe – I think it was the former Member
for Terra Nova. It might have been the Member for Mount Pearl North. It was one
of them. I think it was the former Member for Terra Nova. I remember saying,
b'y, this was a long haul, and I think we're on the wrong side of this one.
We all
had to vote for it, of course, or possibly be tossed, or whatever. It was a whip
vote and so on, but we voted for it. I voted for it and I remember saying, I
think this is a mistake. We're on the wrong side of history, mark my words. And
sure enough, time went on, and we saw all the people being denied information
because of Bill 29. I would argue it was being misused and abused. We started
hearing from constituents, over and over again. It became a huge issue.
I
remember it became a huge issue in our caucus. I can remember bringing it to
every caucus meeting, and other Members were too, saying, pleading with the
Cabinet, we've got to reverse this; we've got to do something to Bill 29. But
they wouldn't heed our warning. They wouldn't listen. In the end, that was the
main issue that landed me with the other party
at
the time. No doubt, it was the beginning of the end for that administration.
Now, in fairness, the new interim Leader came in – the former Member for Topsail
- Paradise – and he got Clyde Wells and they started a committee. They came up
with new ATIPP legislation, which was touted as being the best in the country.
We had the best in the country. That was not that long ago.
Unfortunately, history starts to repeat itself and that's where I want to go
with this. You would think that we all would have learned from that experience
of not being open and transparent, hiding information from the media, from the
public and so on. And that administration paid the price at the polls, primarily
over that issue.
Now, we are hearing from the Citizens' Representative today and he is talking
about the fact that the government is hiding information from the public, from
the media and utilizing the client-solicitor privilege to do it – not wanting to
release information. It was this government that jumped on some court ruling out
West, out in BC somewhere and took the, I'll say, privacy commissioner
to court, or his office, and they fought
in court to fight against our Privacy Commissioner to allow them now to start
hiding information under the auspices of client-solicitor privilege. Not a good
move, I would say. Not a good move.
We have also heard, now, as it relates to the Rothschild report talking
about Cabinet documentation under the excuse of: it's a Cabinet document, we
can't release anything. I believe the Privacy Commissioner recently came out and
talked about he had done a review of all the times that the government had used
that excuse, that it was a Cabinet document. And when he reviewed them, I can't
remember the percentage but a high percentage, I think it was like over 60 per
cent of them, if I am not wrong, the Privacy Commissioner determined it was an
inappropriate use of that excuse, but they did it anyway.
Of
course, NL Hydro and OilCo, formerly under Nalcor, were hiding information under
the Energy Corporation Act. We debated
that legislation when we brought in OilCo. At that time, I asked, let's change
this so that OilCo and Hydro can't go hiding information from the public like
Nalcor has done under the Energy Corporation Act, and this government refused to do it.
That's
three solid examples of where we're going backwards, not forwards and I would
say it's very concerning. I would say to the government, look at what happened
in the past. It was the downfall of that administration; it could be yours as
well. I suggest you start working on being more open and transparent.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
privilege again to stand in this House and represent the wonderful people of
Labrador West.
My
colleague behind me here from Mount Pearl - Southlands said that we don't get
our fair share, and we don't. We have to go to Ottawa and ask for that. It's
kind of funny because sometimes us Members from Labrador feel that similar way
if we have to go St. John's and ask for a little extra, to explain ourselves as
we are a very rural and remote area. We are a territory, basically, within the
province, within the provincial union. So I understand exactly where he's coming
from, but from a different point of view as a Labradorian and as a person who
represents a very, remote, rural area, along with my colleague from Torngat
Mountains and my colleague from Lake Melville and, to the extent, my colleague
from Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, as well.
When you
want to talk about a territory, you can talk about Labrador. It's only 30,000 of
us. We're spread out over a geographical area larger than the Maritimes. We have
that one road. We understand. It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of how
we feel as Labradorians sometimes, as the province as a whole feels with Ottawa.
So when
my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands says get our fair share from Ottawa,
I do agree on both accounts. Labradorians, we do need a little extra. We do live
in a very unique, challenging environment that do require a little extra, but at
the same time I do understand the province's need. We need to go talk to Ottawa
as well, because by talking to Ottawa maybe we can get something for Labrador as
well.
You just
look at the health transfers. What we get from Ottawa – and it's interesting in
the federal health act that it talks
about trying to, with the health transfers, make sure that we can deliver an
equal service across the country, but we don't have an equal service across this
country.
I live
right on the border. From my house, I look into Quebec. I feel like Sarah Palin,
I can see Russia, but I actually can see Quebec from my backyard. If someone
gets sick in Fermont and they need to get to a doctor's appointment, a cancer
appointment, anything like that, they go to their doctor, or the clinic. They
don't even have to go to their actual doctor; go to the clinic, get a pass for
the next outgoing flight and they will either go to Sept-Îles, Quebec, or
Montreal, according to where their specialist is to. No questions asked. They go
pick up a slip, get on a plane and they go get the medical service.
If I
take sick in Labrador West and I have to go to a specialist appointment, well, I
break out my credit card for a $2,000 round trip to St. John's to go see my
specialist and then fight with them to get my money back. That is not fair and
equal access to health care. We are supposed to have a similar service across
this nation. That's how the federal health transfers are supposedly supposed to
work.
Clearly,
the health transfers we're getting from the federal government don't take into
account the very rural and remote regions that we have as this province. So I
agree with my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands and my colleague, the
Leader of the Official Opposition, that, yes, let's go to Ottawa and ask for
more money for health transfers and try to justify that we don't live in a
province with the type of infrastructure that Quebec, Alberta, even the
Maritimes has. They don't have the similar challenges. We have the challenges of
a territory, but we have the population of a province. So we're stuck in this
weird paradox of we're a territory but we're a province, but we're a province in
name but a territory in geography with a splash of urban.
So we're
the interesting one of all the provinces.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Unique.
J. BROWN:
Unique is a good term. Thank
you my hon. colleague. We are unique.
At the
same time, we have to make Ottawa realize that not all provinces are made
equally. Not all provinces have the same issues. We are all very unique, we all
have our challenges and some more challenging than others.
Yes, we
understand that other provinces do have some unique challenges, but they seem to
be striving a lot better with them than we are with ours. I know we went to
Ottawa and asked for rate mitigation help and stuff like that, but that's just a
drop in the bucket of the actual issues that this province faces.
Yes, we have to keep electrical rates down because electricity is a necessity.
It is a necessity of modern society – understandable. But health care is
challenged now. As we go into the future of health care, we are going to find
more challenges and more complexities as we come out of this pandemic. We may be
out of the pandemic and back to a semi-normal society but that pandemic is going
to haunt us for a generation afterwards, so we are going to find some unique
challenges in our health care afterwards.
Clearly, we watched health care workers get stretched so thin now that many of
them have left the profession altogether. How do we replace these people? But
also, at the same time, how do we encourage a new generation of health care
workers to come into the system, as they just witnessed what happened to the
health care system during the pandemic? Did we frighten a complete generation of
potential health care workers? How do we mitigate that challenge on how we
encourage and ask the youth of this province to become a health care worker?
So
these are things that we are facing. Yes, I am with you. I will go to Ottawa and
ask for help to increase health care transfers because we are going to need it.
We clearly need it. What we are seeing from Ottawa now in that is just not going
to cut it. So yes, that is one thing that we need to go and talk about, and I am
more than happy to go and talk about that because I see it in my community. I
went from eight doctors to three. I have less services now than I had when I was
growing up in Labrador West.
I
know that my colleagues from across Labrador have the same thing. We are facing
some unique challenges when it comes to delivering health care. At the end of
the day, how do we go past this? But, at the same time, we have to go back to
Ottawa and say, you have to take into consideration some of these things. So
yes, 100 per cent, I agree with that.
And
this is going to cost a lot of money that even if we did get our financial house
in order, it is still going to be a significant cost. Health care, obviously,
isn't free. It is a very expensive service, but we have to make sure that
everyone has equal and ample opportunity to get the health care they need. I
know that we can do it and we should be having this dialogue with our federal
counterparts.
We
also have a lot of other unique challenges too in the sense that how do we move
forward in encouraging the next generation to take up the mantle of health care
worker, to take up the mantle of engineer, technology and so on and so forth.
And we need to go, actually, look at our own school system and how we provide
education, because that is a changing world as well. Even after the pandemic,
we had those issues there. But we have to encourage our own, to train our own,
to take up as a physician or a nurse practitioner, or work in IT or work in the
future of any industry in this province, or develop a completely new industry.
It is possible, and this is where we need to (inaudible).
So it's
another thing that we need to go and see, where do we find this? Do we talk to
Ottawa about it, about training our own and stuff like that? Because we have to
stem our population decline. We have to find ways of immigration, but also, at
the same time, keeping the population we have and encouraging the population of
the future to stay. Because as we continue to lose population, it's a smaller
tax base. It's a smaller –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
just getting a little difficult to hear the identified MHA.
Thank
you.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We need
to stem the tide of our low population. We have to encourage our population to
stay. We have to encourage our population to do what they pursue, what they want
to do in life as a professional or whatnot, but we need more people to take care
of the previous generation.
Right
now, as a good example, I can't get any home care workers in Labrador West. The
wages are just not there and the work-life balance is just not there, but we
need to find ways to make those a more appealing and more wanted career path. At
the same time, we have to make sure that we train them and encourage them that
they can do this as a valid career, that won't burn them out, and won't put them
in a financial situation where they can't afford to even live.
So we
have to take step back and look at the big picture, and then the sides of the
picture and around the picture, because it's just not that clear. At the same
time, the answer is probably pretty close at hand, and that's where we need to
have a good look at all that.
I know
my fellow colleagues just said it – the cost of living in this province. It's no
different my way. I get calls and I get people saying it's getting tough that
the cost around them have gone up, but the income into their home has not gone
up. We need to have a step back and say, what is priority? What needs to be
looked at first? How do we pursue it in a way that we can make immediate action
and make immediate corrections?
Seniors
not being able to heat their homes – that's a concern that should be top-of-mind
priority. It is very important that it should be addressed immediately. Also,
with that, there are other bills – your hydro bill. I remember that they have
already mentioned to me, it's a public service; why do we pay taxes on hydro?
It's a public service.
So these are things that we can take back and look and
say, hey, should we be charging tax at this time on hydro? Should we be doing
this at this time? Stuff that actually hits directly at home. When someone is
looking at their bill and they notice that if there is a bit of trimming that
the government can help to make that bill smaller, it is probably the best
solution there. Not just a one-time thing but at least for the next year, how
did the bill that shows up at their house, how do we make that smaller? How do
we actually put that back into households and families?
And not just for certain income people, but for
everyone in this province right now because everyone is hurting and some may not
actually say it. Some have their pride and may not say that they are hurting,
but I think a lot more people than normal are hurting. I think there are a lot
of people in this province that are going to have a hard time with this.
We
need to have a look at where do we actually help people directly and the most
effective way and reach the greatest, broadest of this province. Because those
are the ones who really need it right now. I know it is not as simple as it is
to say it, but we have to make sure that – are we looking in the right places?
Are we helping people in the right spots of society and are we doing that?
What is going to happen now is we are going to see a lot more people not being
able to afford rent, so we are going to see more evictions. We are going to see
more people not being able to find shelter. It does spiral very quickly. For a
lot of studies and stuff, even leading up to the pandemic, talking about how for
every one dollar a Canadian makes they owe $1.15 or $1.25. So a few extra bills
or a few extra dollars tacked on to their gasoline or their grocery bill or
anything like that for a person who is living paycheque to paycheque is going to
spiral very quickly.
So
a culmination of pandemic and, in my opinion, greed on Wall Street and a few
other things now have created a situation for residents of this province that
were just not seen before. There are some signs there that this is not going to
be a one-time, small thing. This is going to be an issue for quite some time as
we come out of the pandemic but also as we see a lot of the wealth of Canada
held by a very small
amount of people. It's going to have devastating effects, especially on a
province like ours.
Whenever
the cost of living in this province is significant as it is, we're going to see
a lot more people hurting. So we need to take a step back, look at everything
that's actually going on around here, what actually is hurting, what people are
actually hurting around here and say do you know what? Where do we put the time,
energy and resources into places where people actually get the maximum amount of
benefit?
You look
at the taxes on hydro, the taxes on home heating fuel, things like that, as ways
that, in the short term, people actually have immediate relief from the cost of
what is spiraling out of control.
It's
disappointing to see the large multinational corporations just hoarding so much
wealth at this time, needlessly to be honest; it's unreal. Just to watch the
trading prices on the commodities market and just watching, going wow. These
companies are making massive, massive, massive profits off the backs of some of
the most vulnerable people in the world. It is unreal to watch this time.
So we
need to find ways to step in and push that below for our most vulnerable people.
At this time, the most vulnerable people in this population, that population of
people has grown significantly. We have a large amount of people here that need
immediate relief. They need immediate attention, but, at the time, all of us
together to step up and do what's best and protect them because we just can't
let so many people in this province fall behind. It's just not what we need
right now.
If
anything, we need to encourage and lift up as many people as possible and move
forward, because we have a province to rebuild after a pandemic. We have a
province that we need to move forward because we need to get on the right path
when it comes to the future.
We're
well positioned; we have the resources, the knowledge, the know-how and the
people. We are a place that actually most other nations in this world would envy
and that's just the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They would envy what
we have here and our ability.
We have
a small population but – I think one study, and I don't know how long ago it was
– I remember saying that some of the most educated people per capita is
Newfoundland and Labrador. At one time, we had the largest per capita of so many
different types of engineers and other academics. What really stemmed that was
the ability for us to teach so many people effectively in a short period of
time. We just look down the street at Memorial University, that's a massive
piece of infrastructure, that's a massive education facility for a province of
500,000 people. So we are very well tuned at this, but we can't lose it. By
letting our people down in a time of need is how we lose something like that.
So we
have to make sure that we keep the people of this province supported in a way
that they still want to go and get an education; they're not trying to look for
shelter; they're not preoccupied with the idea of trying to keep their
chequebook balanced. But instead they're looking at maybe I want to go to
school. Maybe I want to take that chance and start that small business and maybe
I want to be that person right now. That's where you have to be to make sure
that those dreams of those people are still those dreams of those people and not
worrying about am I going to make this payment this month; am I going to make
that payment this month.
I know
the other day I asked a question of the Minister Responsible for Labour about
the new relationship between the confidence and supply between NDP and the
Liberals in Ottawa federally. But one of those other things, a good thing that
came out of it is pharmacare. That would do this province so wonderfully, to
have that program put in place here, now, today. Because we see it, as with
another thing that has gone up in cost, is people's medication.
There
are so many stories of seniors cutting pills so they get two days out of one
pill instead of when they're supposed to be taking one or someone using expired
insulin and all those other stories we're hearing. That is a huge cost on a lot
of people is medication. Especially people with chronic illnesses who are on a
medication for life. That is a lifetime of extra cost, especially if they're not
on a drug card or they don't have insurance from their work or employer, that's
an extra cost on an individual for the rest of their life. If we could take that
burden off a person like that and apply it so that they can go to school or take
that chance on that small business or move forward in any of that stuff. That is
one more person who is lifted up and can help another person. For every person
you help, there are two other people that will get helped afterwards because
when you help a person it carries on. It always does. Helpfulness and kindness
is contagious and that is the thing that we need to look at as a province: How
do we help that one person?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
If I can have the attention
of the House, please. For all of those of you who are fans of Canadian Jeopardy!
players: Mattea just won again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
And the question is?
Always a
pleasure to get up in this House of Assembly and speak on behalf of the
wonderful residents of Topsail - Paradise and all throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Before I
start, I think I'll just talk to the ribbon that we've all been wearing. I know
some are not wearing them anymore, but I guess we change our suits, we change
our outfits and the ribbon gets lost, but I'm sure our thoughts and prayers go
out to those in the Ukraine and their families and friends and what they're
going through.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
And all those throughout the
world who are dealing with hardship. That just makes what we do here tonight
even more important, because we live in a fabulous province and we have the
opportunity to do what we do.
This is
Mental Health Week. It's a huge week when we talk about the numbers of
individuals who are dealing with mental health challenges. The slogan for this
year is Empathy: Before you weigh in, tune in. A very good slogan on that. I
believe their hashtag is #GetReal.
I know
when I first got elected, my brother and I spoke to how we were raised, and
empathy was a big part of that. Empathy meaning put yourself in the other
person's shoes. That's something we need to do and we need to do especially when
we're dealing with mental health issues, or speaking with people with mental
health issues.
Like I
said: Before you weigh in, tune in. It's good to know a little bit about mental
health. I've learned a lot since I've taken on this role as shadow minister for
Health and Community Services. You learn that upwards to 100,000 Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians deal with mental health illness. Approximately 40 per cent seek
treatment and approximately 20 per cent receive proper treatment.
We also
know that out of those 100,000, 70 per cent of mental health illnesses start in
childhood or early adolescence. Those are huge numbers. So when you talk about
this showing empathy and before you weigh in, tuning in, that's one in five when
you look at our population. One in five are dealing with mental health issues.
That's probably just the ones who've identified as having mental health issues.
So put that in perspective; that's quite a number.
So how
do I tie that into the budget and the debate that we're having here this
evening? Well, one big issue we've been dealing with is the increase in gas
prices. Gas prices affect a number of things. The main one, of course, is they
affect transportation. For any of us driving or travelling or transporting
anything, you know, to see the price of gas go up like it has, has put a
tremendous strain on our everyday lifestyle.
It's
also affected the price of food. I gave an example there not too long ago in the
House about going into a local grocery store, picking up a small single-serving
salad, mainly lettuce, some tomatoes, some bacon bits, and it was $11-something.
So you talk about trying to eat healthy – that's the result of our increasing
cost of living, our increasing gas prices.
Heat,
that's been mentioned a couple of times in the House, trying to heat your home.
Think of your mother or father or grandparents, living on a single income,
filling their oil tank on a monthly basis, something that may have cost them
$600 is now upwards to $1,000. That's huge. That's huge. Some may not even
realize it, but even shelters where you live is affected by this. I've known of
individuals who have come to me, young couples who actually moved back into
their parent's house in the last month because they couldn't afford to heat
their house and they couldn't afford – so they move back into the basement
apartment. And that's people who have the opportunity to do that. There's others
out there who do not have that opportunity.
My
colleague here from Labrador spoke to the medications. We have the highest aging
population across Canada. At some point in time, we're all going to be on some
kind of medication. But seniors, of course, tend to be on more, and you hear of
them splitting up, rationing out their prescriptions. You hear about them using
expired prescriptions, skipping a dosage. That's all attributed to the cost of
living.
Not too
long ago a couple were interviewed, they come back and forth into the Health
Sciences to get treatments – I believe it was cancer treatments they were
getting. The cost of getting in their car and driving in is becoming a factor in
how they schedule those treatments. So cost of living is playing on them.
If
you're talking about travel as well, we look at the Medical Transportation
Assistance Program, good example, because individuals, who don't have a service
within a certain range will have to drive to that, have to get there somehow.
They're paid per kilometre. They get a per diem per kilometre. That hasn't
changed, yet the price of gas is gone up. So that becomes a cost. That becomes a
strain on individuals who have health issues.
We also
spoke to rapid tests. We got a good answer from the minister today talking about
the groups that get them and talking about small supplies, yet there are
vulnerable groups out there who would do much better if they had access to that
quick rapid test. Not all of them are capable of going off and getting a free
PCR.
We have
Come Home Year happening, we're expecting people to come back home. There's
going to be some anxiety when people come from abroad and you're wondering,
okay, should they come in to the gathering. If they had access to a quick rapid
test that would quell some of their anxieties.
I just
roll back to this is Empathy: Before you weigh in, tune in. That applies
to those with mental health issues, but it also applies to when you're putting
together a budget. When
you're putting together a budget, before you weigh in, tune in. I think it was
said in the House a couple of times here: Listen to the people you represent.
Listen to the people with lived experiences.
There
was a tour of the mental health facility today; I think it was a mock-up tour.
Wonderful. From what I saw, it looks like it's going to be a top-notch facility.
Part of this mock-up tour is to get staff acquainted with it, and they can also
suggest where changes can be made, where improvements can be made, where
something can be done a little bit more efficient.
But this
is a mental health facility. I do hope today was not just a photo opportunity. I
do hope that in moving forward with this facility, that those with lived
experiences, those who are going to be in that facility as patients are going to
be at least asked for this opinion in how they see it set up. That's who it's
going to serve.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Thank you. The Member across
is telling me they have been. So that's wonderful to hear. Because that's what
should be done. Because we should be looking at the goal, the outcome, who it's
going to serve and if it's going to serve them better.
So if I
roll this back, Mental Health Week and what mental health we're dealing with,
and I've given you the numbers, some of the numbers on that and you'll get other
numbers elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is, it's a serious issue here. And
I would suspect coming out of COVID those numbers are probably gone up even
higher. So when we go back to the budget and we talk about, before you weigh in,
tune in, think about individuals with lived experiences; listen to the
individuals out there.
We've
been getting lots of calls, and I'm sure everyone in this House has been getting
the same calls, on the cost of living and what can you do. What can you do to
ease the burden? We've had some debate here when you get up and say: There are
no new taxes in the budget. And we might argue, well, there's a sugar tax. We
might hear, well, that was coming last year, or we might hear talk about the
carbon tax and we might get another response there. That's fine.
But if
you look up the definition of a tax, it's usually a compulsory levy that's put
on residents. But the secondary definition of a tax is a strain or a heavy
demand put on individuals. It does not talk to a levy. It does not talk to
compulsory contribution. The second definition of a tax is a strain or a heavy
demand put on an individual.
So
although the budget may not have had new taxes, and what we see and what I spoke
to when talking about the gas increase, as an example, there is no doubt in my
mind that the budget and the response, or lack of response, is taxing on the
people of this province. It's taxing on them. It may not be a tax, but the lack
of action in some areas has put an unnecessary strain and heavy demand on a good
portion of our population.
Let's
roll back to mental health that I started on. Individuals dealing with financial
stress are twice as likely to develop poor health. So we have a taxing budget
and the gas prices have gone up, and they put financial stress on so many
individuals, and it's twice as likely – forget COVID now. Forget the increase
from the pandemic on mental health, but you have the financial stress, which is
proven to lead to anxiety, depression, substance abuse, mental health issues,
heart disease, high blood pressure, loss of sleep, broken relationships and the
list goes on.
Here we
are in Mental Health Week, debating the budget, and it's all connected. We look
at health outcomes. We have the Health Accord looking at proper health outcomes
and this budget is contributing to poor health outcomes and unnecessary mental
health strain. So that's factual. There's absolutely nothing I said there, in
that 15 minutes, that you will find incorrect. There's nothing. It all flows and
we all heard the issues around the increase in tax and how it's affected people.
You want
to talk about solutions. How do you do this? We've tossed out some things like
the home heating rebate. I even suggested that investment in continuous glucose
monitoring will save money down the road. There are different things we can do.
Also, we talked about, the Member for Labrador talked about it, our leader spoke
to it, about a united front, to try and get our fair share in this Confederation
that we're in.
The
Labour Market Development Agreement, as an example, provides different pockets
of funding across the provinces and territories. It's based on, I think – I
stand to be corrected now – 19 different factors or variables, to try and be
fair in what they put out. I'm not sure if it looks at employment rates and the
like.
Our
health care transfers, on the other hand, are done per capita. Again, a united
front to get our fair share is what's needed here. But if you look at per
capita, every jurisdiction – every province or territory is in a different
situation. They have different demographics; they have different geography. In
this province we have the oldest population. We have the highest rate of chronic
illness, the highest rate of diabetes. I looked at the cancer report recently,
Canadian statistics for 2021, and there some instances there where we have the
highest rates of certain cancers across the country.
So to
accept the per capita formula does not address the real need in this province. I
really think we need to look at that. We need to look at getting our fair share
from the federal government, and I think we need to do it. We hear collaboration
a lot; this is where we really need to collaborate and come together to ensure
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are getting their fair share from
this.
But, again, we have got to bring it back to those with lived experiences. What
are we hearing? What are we hearing here? The Member for Carbonear - Trinity -
Bay de Verde will be happy to hear I, too, was out in his district just last
week and met with a group down in New Perlican and a great conversation. We had
a nice meeting there at the community hall and I will throw this out to him: One
of the phrases we heard was that government is out of touch. Not us, they said
it.
When you hear that, that goes back to listening to what people are saying.
Before you weigh in, tune in. But the other thing which was touched on tonight
as well – I'll quickly get it out in a minute – is one of the individuals I
spoke with – actually there were three gentlemen and they went on and on about
the seal fishery. They went on, much like the Member for Bonavista talked. They
went on and they had all of the facts and they cannot understand why the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were not doing more about the seals and
not just hunting them. They said every part of a seal can be utilized. If it is
not for the meat, if it is not for what is left over for dog food, there are
some portions that can be sent away. The oils are the best you can have
health-wise.
So
let's start listening to the people, listening to what they are saying and let's
really try and make this less taxing on our residents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
just want to talk a little bit about my district. It is the second time around.
Anyway, earlier, I was a little bit emotional because it is really hard when we
are dealing with day-to-day life and I see the lives impacted in my district. It
is different when you talk about, oh, I have the poorest district in the
province. We don't have as much infrastructure and services as other districts.
It
is one thing to talk about that but when you are out there in the district and,
over the years, you have that acquired history of knowledge and you see so many
generations impacted and you see children born and, unfortunately, sometimes,
they are not born into a good future. So, for me, that is important, but I did
talk about the resilience of our people and I wanted to speak a little about
some of our strong
leaders.
Last
week, I did a Member's statement on Boas Jarause. We're only given 200 words, so
to sum up a man who had so much life experience, so much knowledge and was such
a strong leader, it's really hard to sum that up in 200 words, Speaker.
So one
of the things I wanted to mention was his love of the land. I talked a lot about
his leadership in Nunatsiavut. He served his people well, but he was also a very
knowledgeable Innu hunter. He was resettled from Hebron. One thing my mom always
talked about because she and Boas Jarause were chapel servants, she would refer
to him as Brother Boas, which is probably some of the reasons why we called him
uncle, Uncle Boas. But when he was resettled from Hebron down to Makkovik, every
year he would go back. He would go back to his homeland and he would actually
travel by dog team. Every year he'd go back hunting, go back fishing.
Then
after, as time went on, he would travel by Ski-Doo and he did this into his old
age, even when he was sick. He was a really strong person. I think his strength
came from what he witnessed as a young man, when they were forcibly resettled to
the southern part of Northern Labrador.
I
remember a story of my Uncle Tony told me about when he was out with Boas and
Boas's son, Clements. He would go out and he would be sort of really impressed
with Boas Jarause's knowledge of the land. He would know exactly where to put a
net, or he would know where the birds were going to be. His knowledge – and it
didn't matter if it was actually around the Makkovik area, his new home, or
whether it was up north in the Hebron area. That's so important.
Also, he
had such a love for the culture and the language and he was a strong advocate
for keeping the language for the Labrador Inuit. Every time he would go to
meetings, he would speak of that. I have to say, over the years, growing up as a
young girl, and then later going to university and coming home and seeing him, I
was always so pleased to see him. I was so always so impressed by him. In actual
fact, he was one of my heroes, I think, because of his resilience. I think it's
important to talk about that. You can't put that in 200 words so it is important
to be able to say that.
Another
leader, John Jararuse, was resettled from Hebron as well. He went through all
that adversity. I'm going to give a Member's statement tomorrow on him but I
don't have enough room to talk about some of the things and his respect and love
of his church. He was an organ player.
One of
the biggest things that really impressed me was his knowledge and the way he
shared it with people. He knew the history of Hebron. He knew the history of the
resettlement. He was such an educator, not only for people in Nain but for
people from all over the world about his experiences and about the actual, true,
Inuit history. He was never awarded a grand honourary degree. He never had a lot
of recognition, but John Jararuse was a true leader in many ways for the people.
When I
went to his funeral last week, one of the things that really struck me was the
overall love that I could feel in that church for John Jararuse, from his family
and especially his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. I think a measure
of a person, sometimes, is when you can actually share things with your family
and receive so much love and admiration from them. I have to say, the respect in
that church was overwhelming.
Just a
couple of things, too, I am also speaking on the budget. I do bring up housing
issues in my district. One of the biggest problems we have is actually plots of
land now. To get a plot of land developed costs $250,000. If you went back
through Hansard you'd probably see me
mention that probably six or seven or eight or nine times. A plot of land
$250,000, without even starting to build a house.
Over the
last year, I have been bringing up vacant Newfoundland and Labrador houses, only
because they need repair. I think I thanked the Minister of CSSD, who is
responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I have seen the work that you
have done over the last year. I have been critical of the shipping schedule, I
have been critical of the delays, but at the end of the day, I do acknowledge
the work that your department has done. I have to say it is so good to see a
minister who is involved in actually getting action taken. I need to recognize
that.
The one
thing that I would like, you know, looking forward for budgeting, is for
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to come up with a plan where, when a house –
and this doesn't have to just be for the North Coast because it is a chronic
problem elsewhere as well – becomes vacant, that it's turned around; repairs
done and the house is put back in service for another needy family. On the North
Coast, there's no consistency there.
When you
look at it, you rely on the shipping season. So, really, there should be
materials stored and services available so that if a house becomes empty during
the winter, it doesn't sit empty. Because what happens is with the elements,
with mould, break-ins, those sort of things, small repairs become big and then
we get the houses sitting year after year, and on the North Coast we do have a
serious housing shortage.
Now, one
of the things that has always bothered me, as the MHA, is the perception within
the province that we are always wanting things. We always have our hand out. But
when you look at the number of Newfoundland and Labrador houses in my district,
I think there are only 64, 68, around that number, for my entire district.
That's not a lot of houses. I'm not asking for more, I'm just asking for
services to be put in place so that when a house becomes empty, vacant, where a
family is actually relocated, then that house could be put back into service. I
don't think that's a lot to ask for.
Another
thing I'd like to say is that one of the reasons that sometimes it's quite
difficult day after day to talk about the issues in my district is because I
know that people – there's not a lot of interest in helping my district. I'm
just one district; we're up in Northern Labrador, kind of out of sight, out of
mind. But when you look at the problems we experience, the cost of our
electricity.
Before
Muskrat Falls, we were looking at, in my district, over 1,000 kilowatt hours, we
were paying 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The highest anywhere else in the
province was 12.2 cents a kilowatt hour. Really, when you look at that, there's
such a gap between what we were paying for electricity and what the rest of the
province was paying for it. Yet, there's the perception that we want everything
for free, that we want things to be given to us.
For us,
it's really hard. We can't heat our houses at 19 cents a kilowatt-hour up in
Northern Labrador, when the rest of the province is paying 12.2 cents a
kilowatt-hour. We went to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, went to the province,
and here in the House we were told that that little subsidy is costing millions
of dollars, but it's not broken down to show the North Coast access to that
little subsidy. I can say not very many people on the North Coast uses electric
heat, and very, very few houses are taking advantage of that full small subsidy.
So the millions of dollars are from other areas outside of my district. I think
that needs to be pointed out as well.
Just
looking at the price of fuel now on the Avalon, I think it's $2.04 a litre.
We're frozen over the winter. Probably the first time the price freeze have
worked for our benefit, but if the price freeze comes off right now we'd
probably be paying $2.30 a litre. We always end up paying about 30 cents more
than Lake Melville; 32 to 35 cents more than on the Avalon.
The
thing that's really strange is that we're not on an island. The communities in
my district are not on islands. We are not isolated because we're on islands;
we're land based. Every region has been connected to the Trans-Canada, the
Trans-Labrador Highway, but my region.
I mean,
it creates so many problems. It's really, really difficult. One of the issues we
deal is chronic problems with our Internet. If we had a road connecting us, they
would actually be able to roll the fibre optic cable in on the back of trucks.
They wouldn't be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.
But
let's just look at the services now for our Internet. Over the last two years,
we've had COVID. Everything went online. If you're in one of my communities, you
can't do very much online. You can't even upload two pictures at a time because
the speed is 0.2, not one – on average it's between 0.2 to 1.9 megabits per
second. So that's slow Internet, but when you look at the bill you pay for your
Internet – home, we have a phone, the regular landline, just a basic phone line
and the Internet, and our bill for the Internet and the regular landline is $207
a month – no TV, nothing else, no cellphone.
Now,
luckily for us Starlink is coming into play. A lot of people are looking
at Starlink as an option, but I'd like to point out that we're paying $207 for
an Internet speed that don't average over three megabits per second. So how is
that allowed to happen? Where's the fairness in that?
In actual fact, there have been a lot of federal dollars
available for Labrador and for rural northern regions for upgrades, but the last
10 years we've had very, very little upgrades. So who is actually availing of
that money? Not my district. I actually draw little pictures of pots and I put a
dollar sign on it and a little arrow, because that's the federal dollars, the
pots of money that's available to us, that's actually sailing away. So who's
getting the money? It certainly is not us.
Looking at our airstrips, our airstrips were built in the
1980s, 40 years ago. There have been no upgrades to our airstrips, very little
maintenance. Even the little shacks for the passengers and the freight, they're
so small. They're like the size of a small living room, probably 20 by 20. That
has to house the passengers and all the freight. There's no room for the
operator of the heavy equipment that maintains the airstrip to practically even
turn around, let alone do some work.
So where else in the province would that be acceptable? We
rely on those airstrips. That's the only way in and out during the winter. Don't
get me started on the ferry, the boat. Because that boat is weather delayed,
quite often, and in actual fact when that marine service is running, we get
probably five months out of the service. In actual fact, we don't even get that
for passenger travel because when you're getting into September, by the second
week of September no one travels on that boat because
it
is so rough and people are actually afraid. People are afraid to travel on that
boat. So they don't have access to the service that is actually being provided
because of the conditions they have to endure.
What about travel? Practically every week, this time of the year, we have
patients delayed. I have had patients trying to get home for over six days. In
actual fact, I got an email from a resident in Rigolet. There are people delayed
in Hopedale and Makkovik, and I
didn't realize there were people trying to get home from Rigolet. She messaged
me and said she had been stuck now, trying to get home for a week. That was
yesterday. She finally got home today. So after seven days of waiting to travel
home after a medical appointment, she has finally got home.
I went in on her Facebook to message her and I saw there was a post
there from April 30. This is while she was stuck. She says there, on her
Facebook: As bad as I want to get home after being gone for over a week, I feel
even worse for the kids who are supposed to be here in Goose Bay competing in
the badminton regionals this weekend. So the badminton team from Rigolet
couldn't travel to compete in the regionals. She goes on to say: There hasn't
been a regional or a provincial event since before the pandemic began and our
Eagles – that's their team from Rigolet – are the defending regional and
provincial champions. So they couldn't attend because of weather, because of
transportation.
We are not talking about a big blizzard that would keep cars from
driving. This is just, basically, warm, mild conditions where you get the
difference between snow and rain and so the planes can't fly. She goes on to
say: This spring has been the absolute worse with regard to bad weather and
another time the road would have been so beneficial for us.
So it is not only patients that are stuck waiting to get home or
patients on the North Coast waiting for their specialist appointments that are
cancelled and rescheduled for probably another three months. Access to travel is
so important. And what is impacted? Our entire lives are impacted. Our quality
of health service is impacted. Our quality of our student life is impacted.
The emotional and mental health – I had the Member there for Topsail -
Paradise talking about mental wellness. It's so difficult to travel and then you're faced – if the weather is
good and you can travel, well, then you have to buy a plane ticket. If you're in
Nain and you want to visit your grandmother who's in the nursing home in Goose
Bay, you've got to cough up about $1,000 return for one person.
So there
are lot of issues that go on, that impact my district. Sometimes I do get a
little upset about it because it does fall on deaf ears.
But I
just want to give a shout out to Holy Moly, the Nain team in volleyball that
just won the provincials for the age group of 18U Males B – Holy Moly. Now, I
might get in trouble because, in actual fact, they weren't allowed to travel as
students, that's why they're not called the Jens Haven (inaudible) but, anyway,
Holy Moly did win so a big shout-out to you guys.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to stand and just have a few words tonight on the debate and put a few
things on the record.
First of
all, to thank the people of Humber - Bay of Islands for, again, when it started
to open up I was invited to a lot of events and being around and seeing more
people, listening to more concerns. It's always great to get out. This Saturday
night, I attended a firefighters' ball down in Humber Arm South. A great bunch
of volunteers, 28, they had so many calls this years and there's about 15 of
them with 100 per cent showing up to the scene. So I've just got to recognize
that. There was a MHA award given out to a young fella by the name of Keegan
Hynes.
Keegan
did something special down there with one of his friends; he stuck with him and
possibly saved his life. So the MHA award went to young Keegan Hynes, a young
little fella, 16 years old that did something extraordinary that a lot of people
at that age would just try to run and not be involved, but he stood there. I
just want to recognize the great work of the young fella, because we hear so
many sad stories sometimes about young fellas going astray, but here's a young
fella that stood up, showed a lot of courage and a lot of spunk and a lot of
maturity along the way.
Also, I
was over in Irishtown-Summerside Saturday and they had volunteer appreciation
day, the seniors. So they had a great show of seniors, had a great show of
volunteers showing up. The HIS fire department was there and just across the
road there was the Summerside 4-H, the longest one in the province. They
were doing a first aid training put off by the Irishtown-Summerside
firefighters. They're heavily involved in the community with the youth.
Congratulations to the 4-H club in the area.
I know all throughout the district there are all kinds of
events, a lot of volunteer work. Also, Saturday night, I presented a certificate
to the Humber Arm South firefighters on behalf of the Premier of Newfoundland
and Labrador, to recognize the work of the volunteers. They were very
appreciative of receiving the award and being recognized. That was special to
them.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all the residents of the
Humber - Bay of Islands once again. It's always a pleasure to be working with
the town councils. It's a pleasure to be working with all the volunteer groups;
more so, it's an honour and there's only so many of us in this House ever gets
that honour.
I'm going to bring up a few concerns that were raised to me
throughout the travels. One of them is the cost of living. It is real. I think
we all know it's real. What can be done? That's up to government. There are a
lot of great suggestions put forth by the Opposition, by the independents, a lot
of great suggestions put forth. But, obviously, when you stand up and say, well,
we're putting back the gas – I look at the carbon tax, the carbon tax right now
goes right into general revenue, back into general revenue.
When you talk about, well, here's how much money we get
from tax and here's how much money we gave back. How about the carbon tax? The
carbon tax is there, it goes right into general revenue. This is all extra funds
that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gets. They always say, okay,
well, we can't cut the gas tax, can you give an income tax rebate? Can you give
a rebate to senior citizens? Can you give a rebate to some people who are on
lower income? There are always ways to do it, if there's a will to do it.
I can assure you, I know some Members opposite, they get
the calls; they get a lot of calls. They definitely get a lot of calls. There
has to be a way, the cost of oil, the cost of gas, the cost of food, the cost of
medication, anything that you do now, it's gone up. So this idea that, okay,
that's how much we got for the gas tax, that's how much we'll give you. We need
more. We need more.
I would venture to say – and I'm not speaking for anybody
in this House, but if we gave some rebate right now because of the extraordinary
circumstances in the world, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, not unique to
Newfoundland and Labrador, in the world, if we gave extra, a rebate to the lower
end; the seniors who really need it; the transportation; the truckers and all
that. And we said the deficit this year, instead of being $300 is going to be
$500. Who is going to argue that? When it's extraordinary circumstances, you
take extraordinary measures. That is the way governments should work.
We all applauded the federal government when we had the
COVID; we all applauded when they were helping out the tourism industry; helping
out this industry; helping out with that industry because it is extraordinary.
Here we are in Newfoundland and Labrador right now with extraordinary
circumstances and we have a government out bragging how low the deficit is,
which is not bad, but there are people suffering. There are people suffering. I
know people, personally, right now, who can't put enough oil in their tanks. So
what they do is they save it for the night times or evenings and they are out
somewhere all day. And I'm not being dramatic here. That's a fact. That is an
actual fact.
Here we are sitting down when there are things that we can do as legislators,
things that can be done by government and just not being done. It's just not
being done. It's almost like you can't understand it, because I remember the
Liberal values was to help the people on the lower end. That was always the
Liberal values and then you had the philosophy of the PC Party was okay, let's
help, and it is going to filter down. Always the philosophy – if there are
Liberals over there – was to help the lower end. Always the philosophy. Now the
philosophy is just not there any more. It is not there.
If
you go back and look at the history of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador – look at the history of the Liberal Party of Canada – it was always
helping the grassroots – the grassroots. Somewhere along the way the Liberal
Party of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost its way.
When there is a way to help, when there is the means to help, when we got
extraordinary circumstances in Newfoundland and Labrador where people are
suffering; people are deciding should I have medication; should I have food;
should I have heat; should I have oil? We can help and we are not helping.
It is a
sad day. If the Members opposite don't hear any of those concerns, come with me
for a day or two. Just come over and spend a bit of time. I'm serious; there are
people suffering. When people start suffering, the anxiety kicks in. With
anxiety, then we have the mental health issues because they become isolated.
They can't go out and do the things they wanted to do. Some seniors can't even
drive the car.
I'm
urging government – I'm probably speaking on deaf ears – I'm used to that – but
I can tell you I am standing here as one person who has been elected, who has
been around longer than anybody in this House, there are people suffering in
this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we can do something about it and
we're just not doing it – we're just not doing it.
I just
had to bring that up. I urge the government, again, to reconsider. Go back in
that Cabinet room, wherever you got to go, go back and say, what can we do –
what can we do? Because there has to be something; our people with the mental
health issues; people are going without medication; people are going without
food; people going without heat in their houses.
Trust me
and if everybody over there is living in a glasshouse, come over in the Humber -
Bay of Islands and I'll let you speak to some real people –
(Disturbance.)
E. JOYCE:
That's one right there on the
phone now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
E. JOYCE:
One right there just sent me
a note then: What you're saying is 100 per cent correct.
Speaker,
the other thing that I am going to bring up too – and, of course, we all know
it, but it is almost like it is not happening, is lack of doctors on the West
Coast. People say, oh, we have more doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can
tell you there are thousands and thousands of people on the West Coast without
doctors. I know three myself, just gone, absolutely gone. The wait time now at
the emergency goes up seven, eight, nine hours. So no one can tell me that's not
real.
There
are options. There are three nurse practitioners; I asked the minister to meet
with them. He won't do it. The answer that you get, well, we're working with the
Nurses' Union. That's great, but meet with the nurse practitioners. My god,
they're human beings. They're out there helping people. They're actually out
helping people and here is an opportunity to help out on the West Coast, the
Corner Brook area, all surrounding Corner Brook, Bay of Islands area.
Here are
three people who set up an office trying to get a meeting with the minister. I'm
asking for a meeting for the minister to meet with them and we can't get the
Minister of Health and Community Services to meet with three or four nurse
practitioners in Western Newfoundland that would help with our health care.
There's something fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally, there's something wrong.
If the
minister would like to meet with them, I would arrange the meeting tomorrow.
They would clear their schedule, Minister, for you tomorrow. For Friday,
Saturday, Sunday, they would meet with you.
I ask
any Member in this House – here's a good example – any Member, whoever wants to
stand up and deny this, if you knew there was a business coming in here going to
spend $5 million or $10 million and they said we need a meeting this Saturday or
Sunday, how many people in this House, if they're in town, would meet with that
group? How many? Not one, but the minute we say let's go and let's help and meet
with people who are going to help our health care, there's an issue. I just
don't understand it. I honestly just don't understand it. I don't know where we
went wrong that we can't sit down with individuals to try to help with
solutions.
I use
the cataracts again; I brought it up today. It's just beyond me why this is not
solved. It is just beyond me. I have a lot of reasons, which were proven false.
I have other reasons were proven false, but there is no one in this government
has yet to say to me, okay, we can do that. Let's go do it. It not going to cost
a cent. It is not going to cost any extra money. We're going to help 800 seniors
in Western Newfoundland. I mean you think you'd jump for joy. You think you'd go
out and have a nice press conference and say look at the seniors we're helping,
which you deserve to do.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Photo op.
E. JOYCE:
Photo op, I don't care what
it is. If the people want to have a photo, go ahead, as long as the seniors can
see. As long as the seniors gets a quality of life, as long as they can get
their licence back, as long as they can read the medication, I don't give a hell
who gets the photo, as long as it's done.
This is
the kind of thing that I don't know why it's not done. This is the kind of
information that you give to a government that should take it, grab it and say
oh my God, we can help out here. Take it and do it, but it's not being done. For
some reason, there are two or three options for health care in Western, and it's
just not being done.
I'd say
to the Minister of Tourism, if somebody was going to set up a big tourism
structure out in the Humber - Bay of Islands tomorrow and say we need out there,
we have a great tourism structure, you'd be out to meet with them – you would,
but health care we won't for some reason. We won't.
We know
the lack of doctors. We know that we need some other way. Here are nurse
practitioners who can do it, and they can do it much cheaper than having people
waiting in outpatients or specialists. They can give people their driver's
licence. They can give prescriptions. They can give it to the people that need
to go for a blood test. They can do all that. There are options there, and we
won't do it as a government.
This is
where I can honestly tell you, I miss it. I just don't understand it. I go back
to the days with Clyde Wells. I even go back to the days with Brian Tobin. I
even go back to the days with Roger Grimes. If you said to Roger Grimes, Brian
Tobin, Clyde Wells, Beaton Tulk and any of those guys, we've got an option out
there, we're going to get you 600, 700 per nurse practitioner that can see
people; we've only got four or five. The b'ys would be on the plane, gone.
They'd be gone out to meet with them. They'd sit down with them. They'd bring
them in a room and say: What can we do to help out here?
That's
what I'm used to as a Liberal Party. If there's an option there – I've seen
Clyde Wells sit down with a fisherman, on a regular basis, because it was
something he thought they could help out. I've seen Beaton Tulk fly out on a
Friday night to meet with someone because there was a great adventure that
someone needed done out there, that he needed to be a part of. No PR, no
cameras, just go out and get it done.
I'm
asking this government will someone go out and look at the options that can help
people with their health care. They're there. They're easy. They're simple. But
it's just not being done. For some reason, if it's going to be a bit of
controversy, or it may be not within the procedures that we should follow, it's
just not being done. And while it's not being done, there are a lot of people
being affected by it, and that's the sad part. If it was some of us just worried
and some of us up here bantering back and forth, but I'm giving suggestions.
I'm
making real people count in this House of Assembly by offering and asking the
minister, asking the Premier, asking other people in government to try to get
meetings with these people so that they can get the cataracts done, so they can
get back their dignity and quality of life in their last number of years, and
then nurse practitioners who can definitely help out with our doctor shortage in
Western Newfoundland. I'm begging the government to go look at it – begging
them. I'll even arrange the meeting, and I'll walk out. I don't want to be a
part of it; I just want the meetings.
That's
not much to ask. For the seniors, for the people in Western Newfoundland that
haven't got a doctor, who's spending eight, 10 hours at emergency, some of them
leaving out of frustration or pain, that's not much to ask a government
official, who is elected to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, either
the Minister of Health or the Premier to meet with these groups and get this
resolved, because it can be resolved.
I can
assure you, once the meeting is held I will walk away from it. I'll walk away
from it and I won't say another word, because I'm convinced that if the Minister
of Health and the Premier sits down with these two groups, the nurse
practitioners and the seniors about the cataract surgery, I am confident they
would say we can do this fairly easy.
Once
again, I'm repeating myself and I won't do it anymore. I'm asking, again, to
have meetings with the people in Western Newfoundland, who can make a difference
with our health care, because we hear it every day, some horror stories about
our health care; how we haven't got enough doctors; people got no family
doctors. I'm giving solutions here that people are coming to me and saying we
got solutions. Yet, we won't give the solutions and the government won't give me
the option to give them the solutions. It's sad. It's actually sad, and for
whatever reason, I don't know. I really don't know what the reasons are. I
really, truly don't know.
I ask
any Member here without a doctor in their communities, if you had an option,
wouldn't you expect to get meetings arranged? Wouldn't you expect it? As I said,
those nurse practitioners, they had over 4,000 visits so far – 4,000 – in
Western Newfoundland. That a lot, that's a lot for three, and they could do a
lot more.
So I'm
urging again, the government, to reconsider the way they have meetings, or who
they meet with, or however they do it. I don't know what the procedure is. I'm
asking you to change those procedures so we can put dignity of life back to
Newfoundland with our number one issue in this province right now – the number
one issue is health care in our province and close behind is the quality of
living, because the cost of living has gone up so much. But I can assure you
that the health care is a major issue that we can help out on the West Coast.
I'm
going to bring up another issue to the Minister of Education. I was asked to
bring this up to the minister, it's very brief, is sign language. There are a
lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who need sign language. A person
asked me would I bring it up the Minister of Education in the House and I
committed I would. To see if there's any way to get some – if there's any class
or anything in school that you could do a program or a course in school so a lot
of the kids will not be so isolated in the schools. So some of the kids, some of
their friends, other people would be able to learn sign language.
I ask
the Minister of Education if there's any option that can be done to help out
people who need sign language to associate with (inaudible).
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The
Member's time is expired.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
sure if you were paying attention while I was in the Chair a few minutes ago,
but I took some liberties to announce that Mattea Roach just won her 21st game
of Jeopardy! I wanted to start off my
remarks because there's a lot of – maybe some possible parallels with what is
happening with this amazing young woman. She's only 23; she's from Nova Scotia,
now living in Toronto. I think the whole country is claiming her.
You
know, in these troubled times, we all need heroes and they come from different
directions. I just wanted to read to the Legislature here tonight, Mattea says
her reason for success – she's won 21 games, she's now slowly becoming one of
the top winners of all time on that amazing show. The final
Jeopardy! question tonight was in the
category of national anthems. So here's the answer: Terre de nos Aieux follows
the title in the French version of this anthem.
Quite
remarkable, because she says that her number one trait and secret to success is
luck. Her second feature of great success is her memory. And, finally, it's her
thirst for knowledge. She says it's these three traits which are giving her this
amazing run that a lot of us who watch and participate in different kinds of
things.
But,
anyway, I just wanted to mention that because I think for this province to
really go forward we need to realize what our assets are. We certainly have
tremendous natural resources offshore and onshore. Most importantly, we have an
amazing workforce. Amazing human resources, the next generations that are
coming, the attitudes that we all share. The reasons why we're all in this room.
We love this place. Even those of us who weren't fortunate enough to be born
here, but have come to fall in love with it and commit to it – I'll speak for
myself – I can't think of a better place in the world, despite all it's
challenges and so on. It's a tremendous place to contribute to society, and I
believe everyone in this room.
Similar
with Mattea, it's going to take a very determined group of shrewd thinkers to
get us through the hurdles that are in front of us, whether it be climate
change, which I'm always speaking to; our fiscal challenges; or our demographic
challenges. So many other issues that we're dealing with, but we will get
through it.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a little bit of time tonight to talk about something
that is right here in front of us. And staying with the theme of the
subamendment of non-confidence and the discussion around the role of Canada and
what Canada is doing, I wanted to talk about some of that Canadian presence that
we have within our province that we actually don't talk a lot about in this
House and that is the Department of National Defence. I speak from a great
personal experience. In fact, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for 5 Wing Goose
Bay.
In
1987, I was working elsewhere in the country and I heard about an opportunity to
support the NATO base proposal in Goose Bay. At the time, it was called Canadian
Forces Base Goose Bay. I applied to work on the environmental assessment and the
rest is history. It has been an amazing run.
At
the time, in the'80s, and as we all know the history of, whether it be, Goose
Bay, Gander, Stephenville or even St. John's, the role that we played and our
strategic location on the Northeastern edge of this continent of North America
is really an amazing asset. The determined workforce that we have here and so on
is also something that builds on it.
So
back to my hometown of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Wing – this is a very
important asset. Back in the late '90s and early part of the 2000s, you know
there were foreign nations that were conducting low-level flight training and
other kinds of training from Britain, Germany, Italy, Holland, we actually had
other allies who would be there on occasion but those ones were the main allies
that were flying there. And do you know what? For every dollar that Canada was
investing in the operations of Goose Bay, at the time, foreign nations were
spending another two or three bucks. Think about that. I mean, talk about a
business case, and I come from the private sector. If you invested one and knew
you got another one or two, you wouldn't stop.
I
found myself in 2003 chairing what would become known as the Goose Bay Citizens
Coalition. This was a group of people from the private sector, from government,
different levels of government, Indigenous leadership, folks who were connected
with the Air Force, with different circles and so on. And we became an
incredible, interesting grassroots force that found itself here in this building
around, I would say, November of 2003.
The
premier of the day had just been elected. We managed to make a great impression
on him and what we needed to do, because at that time it was very clear that
Ottawa was considering closing down 5 Wing Goose Bay. We argued on all those
points I made before,
and many more, as to the merits of this. It took a great, determined effort, and
I'll thank the government of the day for standing forward with us.
Off we
went to Ottawa, and I think it was just before Christmas and just after, we
found ourselves in the prime minister's office sitting and talking about the
importance of the base and the role that we needed to all realize we're going to
need to play to ensure its sustainability.
I'm very
pleased to say that, over the subsequent years, we actually found ourselves in
2005-2006 in a bidding war between the two main parties of the country, the
Conservatives and the Liberals. Lo and behold, we went from a place that was
definitely destined for closure to being involved in a bidding war between the
Conservatives and the Liberals.
It was
an interesting exercise for myself to learn some of that political arena and, lo
and behold, the base has continued to maintain an important presence. Just
recently, Serco, the service provider for 5 Wing, has just been awarded a
$694-million contract for operations over the next 10 years, with opportunities
to extend for an additional two five-year increments, if exercised, represents a
$1.5-billion contract for the next 20 years.
So we
have an amazing facility located on the northeastern part of our continent, and
I have to tell you there's a great friend of mine – I'm going to mention his
name – Lieutenant-Colonel Guy Parisien. He's the commander of 5 Wing. He was
just in town here, I think, last week. He got to meet with some of the different
officials, I think, here in the room.
He is
leading an amazing team at the Wing that is playing a pivotal role. We provide
NORAD response right now through North Bay and then out of the United States. I
don't know if many of you were aware but we often have, for example, Russian
Tupolev bombers coming off our coast, fighter jets, which are based in
Bagotville, 505 miles away, political lobbying, will scramble to Goose Bay and
then will mount the defence. Again, the importance of Goose Bay and where we sit
on the coast.
We've
been doing this for decades. Now, with the heightened alert and sensitivity and
the fact that hey, just across the top is Russia – a country that I worked many
years in – which has become a belligerent in terms of our posture for Canadian
geopolitics, it's a real big challenge for us.
With
this challenge, comes an opportunity. That's what I wanted to speak to
government about because I would suggest, just what Goose Bay alone can
contribute, and the opportunities – and you've heard the Defence minister say
just recently, she's working to increase Canada's commitment to defence spending
to the NATO requirement, which is 2 per cent of GDP. There has been a
substantial increase. I don't think they quite got there in the budget, but
she's certainly working on it.
There
are massive amounts of money available for investment in infrastructure, in
training, in materials and equipment and so on. We need to realize that. Just as
I stand here, late on a Tuesday night trying to get everybody's attention,
everybody in this House needs to realize there's opportunity in Goose Bay; there
are opportunities in Gander; there are opportunities here in the CFS station
here in St. John's. There are other locations in Corner Brook, Stephenville and
so on. Every one of those locations and many more have opportunities to step up.
We all need to create – and I'm going back to Mattea –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of chatter is getting too loud.
P. TRIMPER:
– I'm suggesting that we need
to get our heads together. If people in this House would actually sit down and
think about it, think about what you can bring to the table and bring our
collective lobbying, I can tell you right now we would stop losing contracts
right now, which have recently been awarded to Greenwood. We are in a serious
competition right now with Cold Lake for maintaining the attention of the German
air force.
We are
also in competition with Bagotville, Quebec; I heard some of the Members talking
earlier about the frustrations of Quebec. I can tell you, if we're not paying
attention, we're going to watch a lot of these opportunities go by. And they're
there for us. The federal government is spending billions and we can decide,
well, that's a federal responsibility, let them just go do their thing, or we
can realize this is in each of our backyards.
I've
just named, I would say, seven or eight MHAs here right now who have an
opportunity, and maybe they haven't even thought about it. I'm proposing, as
part of this budget discussion here this evening, that we should find ourselves
again with a coalition. And this time I'm offering to take the wisdom and the
experience that we had in Goose Bay – we ran the Goose Bay Citizens Coalition
for some six years; it was tremendously successful. We need a similar model. I
would love to take my previous experience, connections here now with everyone in
this room and share with you some ideas. I think there's a great situation
there.
Just a
few more things that are going on in Goose Bay, because I want to reach back
also to the folks back at home, who elected me in Lake Melville. Speaker, 5 Wing
is really an important hub; I call it my sixth community, after Sheshatshiu, Mud
Lake, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River
and
Churchill Falls. And 5 Wing is itself, its own community.
I am often on the base, working with and socializing
with folks. We have close to 100 people in uniform. Many of them, often I will
have a beer with them on one Friday night and then two weeks later they could be
deployed to Afghanistan or in Operation UNIFIER. The Member's statement that I
gave today is very personal for me. The Member for Terra Nova and I we had a
little chat today because of his previous experience and I thank him for his
service. But we both recognized the role that people like Melanie Lake – and
perhaps she was inspired by the military presence. There are great opportunities
for us. We need to think about them and we need to go after them.
Again, at Goose Bay, Lieutenant-Colonel Parisien is in charge of Operation Noble
Defender. This is a NORAD exercise. It runs three to four times a year. It
involves several NATO countries. I bet you almost nobody in this room knows
about it and it is happening off our coast. The United States Air Force and the
Danes are involved, Canada, others. And we are preparing for cruise missile
attacks, enemy aircraft attacks and these are simulations, yeah, but it is all
about a state of readiness. As I said with my Member's statement today, you look
at the people like the Lieutenant-Colonel Lake and what she is doing and how
Ukraine is benefitting from that.
So,
unfortunately, there is a very important humanitarian role to play here but
let's face it, folks, there is an economic opportunity. I am suggesting that we,
as a Legislature, and with each of the locations that we have, let's get our
heads together and see what we can do to come up with some real synergy. I know
we can do it. If you can watch a 23-year-old win 21 episodes of
Jeopardy! I am sure this Legislature
can figure out how to get the attention of Ottawa and show them what we can do
in terms of the defence of Canada.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
So,
Speaker, what I will be talking about is related to an event I attended today
and how it affects my district. I guess it goes to the whole notion, Speaker,
that a budget is about priorities; about where we choose to spend money and
where we choose not to; where do we assign value; what do we consider valueless.
I
was invited to speak at a CUPE convention today the theme of which is Reject the
Reset. Some of the key
issues that are important to them is pay equity. Basically, they reject the
whole notion that pay equity for women is expensive, costly and, basically, it
will be a meaningless, minor and non-meaningful adjustments for a limited number
of women. They totally reject that, certainly for the women who would be
affected. Yet, we're hearing that, we've heard that in this House already and
we've seen it in the media.
That's a
priority that should be a priority, about lifting people up in this province.
Whether we do it on our own or we do it with the help of Ottawa is immaterial,
but somewhere along the line that's got to be a priority.
Early
childhood educators: what's our priority when it comes to early childhood
educators? What is the value we place on our children, on looking after our
children, of making it possible for parents to carry on with a career? Well, it
would make sense, Speaker, that we have early childhood educators who are well
paid. CUPE is looking for $25 an hour, on a wage grid, starting at that, as an
indication of their value. What has government put forward? Four hundred
thousand, Speaker, to study pay equity, to further study it, to do another
study; there are plenty of studies on it. Most of the people who are in early
childhood education are women.
We've
got $400,000 for that, but we can put $5 million into a Rothschild report, an
outside company to determine what resources we're going to sell off. I can tell
you, Speaker, that my phone has been ringing off the hook with regard to – I've
got a folder up there now of parents who are looking for child care and some
people who are looking to start child care, but we've become the centre, the
clearing house for it, and they're desperate.
That
brings me into another issue: housing. Noam Chomsky said
that privatization, the strategy of privatization is to defund, make sure things
don't work, people get angry and then you hand it over to private capital. We're
seeing that, I believe, in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing very clearly.
I spoke
with a number of workers in transition houses who are seeing increasing numbers
of homelessness, more people staying in the transition homes who are victims of
domestic violence or homeless as a result of that. And they're finding that the
people who are staying in these transition homes are either staying longer, they
have more complex needs and they have no place to put them. The main reason,
Speaker, that they are having this difficulty is that a lot of the houses,
especially Newfoundland and Labrador houses, are not fixed up and available for
residency.
The
people in Marystown told me that they can't have rent supplements in Marystown
because they have vacant units, but the units – 30 or so – are in disrepair and
uninhabitable.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. DINN:
Thank you for that. I
appreciate the support, Minister.
Here is
the basic thing: insufficient staff to do the job. This is what we're hearing.
There are not enough staff in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do the job.
Can't get the contracts to do it at a reasonable price, and there are delays.
And there is certainly in St. John's, in my district, I can tell you, the same
issue. So that's Marystown, that's Labrador, that's Central Newfoundland, that's
Western Newfoundland, the same thing. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units
are in disrepair, uninhabitable; people there's a crunch.
So it
would seem, based on –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of chatter is getting too loud.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
I guess as they pointed out,
it seems as if it's being deliberately done not to get these units fixed up.
Now,
today, CBC had contacted me about the decline in the downtown centre. Since I
was elected in 2019, and my predecessor Ms. Rogers, dealt with the same thing:
phone calls with regard to crime in the area. Residents are concerned about
public safety; they want to see proactive supervision by the police. I compare
it, Speaker – and my colleague for Bonavista will certainly appreciate this – to
supervision in a school. It was never about being reactive; it was always about
having a presence there in the corridors so that you can prevent problems.
And this
is what they're asking for, in many ways, to have a police presence that is not
just responding to the calls, but is there to get to know the residents of the
area and the neighbourhood.
So here
is a situation back in the fall of a single mother who had willingly given up
her children to deal with her own substance abuse and addictions issue. She had
to get her life in order, and then went back to get custody of her children. She
was going to be put into a house in one of the streets in this neighbourhood.
She called our office; she was in panic. Her comment was: I cannot go back
there. I cannot go there, it will jeopardize everything I've worked – it will
jeopardize my sobriety, my recovery, it will jeopardize my family. She was
frantic.
Now, we
were able to get her moved somewhere else, but no neighbourhood should be that
bad, that people do not want to move in there because they know that there is a
drug issue there. There are multiple houses where drugs are being dealt with,
and we need to deal with it. There's a role here, Speaker, for all. It's not an
easy solution, but there's a role here for the provincial government, for the
municipal government, the police and, yes, the federal government as well.
We ask
for standards. One of the problems in the neighbourhood are slum landlords.
We've asked for standards when it comes to putting people into these homes, to
make sure that they are able to live with dignity. We are, after all, putting
public money into paying rent for people. They should be in decent homes and
landlords should be held to account.
We also
have landlords who are refusing to rent to people who are on income support.
Usually it goes like this: Where do you work? I don't work, I'm on income
support. You never hear from them again. And part of it is that income support
recipients are getting the reputation of difficulty. Why? Because there are
people who are difficult to house. There are people who have mental health and
addictions issues that need supports. I used to say this with teaching,
inclusion is not simply putting every student into the class. It's about
inclusive education, where you put the supports in place.
So
when we are putting people into housing, what are the supports in place so that
they have the ability to thrive? They have the supports they need so that the
neighbours around them are safe and that they are safe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. DINN:
Thank you.
It
is one of the reasons, Speaker, that we have asked for – to me, if there is one
form of housing that should be banished, that is bed-sitting rooms. Every place
that we pay rent for, a person should have their own kitchen and their own
bathroom where they have privacy and dignity and they are free from a threat
from anyone else. But instead, we put them with slum landlords where that is not
done.
I
asked as a priority, Speaker, in our budget submission that we build another
community centre in the eastern end of my district that would help create a
sense of community and a sense of neighbourhood. I will speak from experience
here from the people – because I have mentioned both the Froude Avenue Community
Centre and the Buckmaster's Circle Community Centre and the work that they do in
creating a neighbourhood environment of creating a community, and that is what
is needed when you are invested in the area.
The
other part about this, I would argue, is that we need to start investing more in
the community centres we have. Making sure that the people who work there are
able to afford health care; they have a decent salary; they have a pension at
the end of it. That is not the case. They are working above and beyond, but they
are needed. I can tell you, as a teacher, they are also doing yeoman's work in
making sure that the students have the supports for their academics that they
have. That is an all-around solution to poverty.
I
will tell you that some of the issues in the neighbourhood have to do with the
drug houses. There needs to be greater police presence because while the police
are dealing with the big fish, the ones who are bringing it in, we still need to
know and deal with the people who are dealing drugs out of their houses. And it
is bringing a criminal element there – organized crime even.
They are looking, basically, for some help with this. When I was first elected,
I think it was on Bond Street, Speaker, there was a killing outside of an
emergency shelter. Since that time, there have been several other murders in
that part of town and it is no wonder that the people in the area are feeling
unsafe. They are feeling neglected. Basically, all levels whether it is the
provincial, federal,
municipal and the police have written them off. It is something we would not
tolerate in our own neighbourhoods.
Of
course, I'll go back to this. The root of poverty, of hunger, is income. We can
solve a lot of problems here by dealing with it, about priorities. Now the
five-point plan is a good stopgap measure, I guess, as far as stopgap measures
go. It's like pulling people who are drowning out of the water. But at some
point we've got to stop pulling people out of the water, and we've got to figure
out why they're ending up in the water in the first place, and stop it there.
I
brought up in this House before that a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives noted in a BC study that raising the income of the bottom quintile
of the population, the poorest quintile up to the next level, actually results
in a saving of 6.7 per cent to the health care system. I think it's over $200
million if we did the same here. That would be the savings.
So
that's one thing we can do. But the other thing we can do for a small number of
people is when they decide that those who are on income support, when they
decide to return to upgrade their education, when they decide to make the step
to get off income support, that they are able to keep their drug card. So that
they are not disadvantaged, so that they are not in panic about their own health
care, their own serious health care needs.
Secondly, can we not strike the committee of guaranteed basic income? Prince
Edward Island – little PEI – all three parties, the PCs who are in government,
the Liberals –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. DINN:
Oh no, this is a compliment
to you, don't worry – this is a compliment. The same idea of poverty reduction,
Speaker, this is good. They're the Premier, so that's fine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
The Liberals and the Green
Party, and I'm sure if the NDP were actually the House they would be signing it
as well. But they signed a letter to the federal government demanding basically
that they put a province-wide basic income in place in the province. That's PEI.
Wouldn't it be great – I know on this side, for sure, we would go
along with it, but wouldn't it be great if we all started that all-party
Committee on guaranteed basic income to look at a pilot, just to explore the
idea and see how it would benefit our people in this province?
Let's legislate a living minimum wage. I have said this in my budget speech, if
it is a problem for small businesses then let's give them a break in their
business tax. Let's bring in pay equity legislation. If it is only going to
affect a small number of women – that's what it is – it is not going to cost
that much but it will be meaningful to the women who benefit from it, then let's
do it. It will raise their level – it would raise them out of poverty.
Let's bring in anti-replacement worker legislation so that we don't have the
longest lockout in history like in D-J Composites in Gander. Let's really start
looking at just transition legislation that involves workers and unions that is
meaningful and that protects workers and Newfoundlanders and the economy as we
transition to a greener economy.
As
I said at the beginning, it is about priorities. Where do we spend our money? To
me, there is a neighbourhood in my district, Speaker, that could use the
investment and the priority. A lot of the measures I have put here that are
dealing with mental health issues, supports, supportive housing, increased
police presence, a community-based approach and housing standards are all going
to be helpful. I will focus on this again.
The
Grace General Hospital site:
before that is given over to a developer to put up high-priced condominiums,
there has got to be room there for affordable and supportive housing for the
people who need it. Emergency shelters are not the answer. It's not the answer.
It's a stopgap measure. So, if anything, let's put the money into developing
supportive housing, similar to what is down at the Ches Penney Centre of Hope
for those who need it and affordable housing for families and single people who
need it as well.
That's my desire in a budget. Those are the priorities that I have
because I think if you are helping people like that, you're going to cut down on
crime. You're going to cut down on the admissions to the health care system.
You're going to cut down on unemployment. You name it. All of those things, in
addition to what I have heard here in this House tonight, when it comes to
health care. That's going to lift people up in this province; not
selling out of our public assets. It is going to come down to lifting people up
at the grassroots level. That's where it starts; that's where it is meaningful.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
the House ready for the question?
S. CROCKER:
Absolutely.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the subamendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
SPEAKER:
Motion defeated.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
My God, Mr. Speaker, I was
about to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it
has been a long day and I almost had to get my election signs out.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by my friend for Conception Bay South, that this House
do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.