March
15, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 68
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would move that the House
resolve itself into a Committee, seconded by the Minister of Education, to
consider Order 2, Committee of Supply, a resolution and Bill 71 respecting the
granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty much to the chagrin of my colleagues
on the other side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to debate
Interim Supply.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
considering the related resolution and Bill 1, An Act For Granting To Her
Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2018 And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service
AN HON. MEMBER:
Bill 71.
CHAIR:
Bill 71, sorry.
Resolution
That it
is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty
for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year
ending March 31, 2018, the sum of $2,703,698,200.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm
happy, as I have always been, on every single occasion I've had the opportunity
to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the people of my district and on
behalf of the people of this province. And certainly happy to stand here today
and speak to Bill 71, and to speak to Interim Supply, a bill that many people in
the province I guess generally wouldn't be aware of. It certainly wasn't
something I was aware of prior to being elected and coming in and having this
debate. But during my four years in Opposition and during my first year in
government, I've obviously learned more about this process.
Now, one
of the things I want to talk about is that and again
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
there's no doubt that there
has been some significant conversation over this in the last day, and I look
forward to the commentary from my colleague, the Third Party House Leader; I
look forward to her comments on this important piece of legislation. I look
forward to anything that the Third Party might have to say to this important
bill today. Because I like to be here in this House and I like to speak to
legislation. And I hope that she will take the opportunity to speak to this
legislation.
I know
that the Independent Member, the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands do you
know what? I know he will speak to this. To give him credit and there are
times I find it hard, but to give him credit he has spoken to most pieces of
legislation in this House aye, nay, whatever depending on what side of the
House he was on, either side, he's spoken to legislation. This is no different;
this is an important piece.
So what
we saw yesterday was a conversation on Interim Supply and how the Opposition
doesn't feel that they want to talk to it. In fact, they haven't taken many
opportunities to speak to it. Even though when they were in government they had
plenty of opportunity and exercised that opportunity to speak in this House.
I'll continue to exercise my opportunity to speak to it. This is a chance to
speak to the budgetary process of this province.
Now,
what many people don't realize is that the budgetary process under this
province, in many ways, is controlled under the Standing Orders: a very old,
historic number of sections where we talk about the budget process. You have to
spend X number of hours debating this; there are different headings of
expenditure that we speak to. These are all things that could be changed by a
Standing Orders Committee.
What I
will point out, that people should realize, is that the Members opposite, who
sat in government for 12 years, had every opportunity to update, to modernize,
to change how we do business in this House of Assembly. Madam Chair, they did
nothing. They did nothing.
What I
will say is that since we've taken over and I, as Government House Leader, have
been on the Standing Orders Committee and we have representation from all sides
the House Leader of the Third Party is on it; the Deputy House Leader for the
Official Opposition is on it; my colleague for St. George's Humber is on it;
the Deputy House Leader for government is on it. And we've had an opportunity,
we've met on a number of occasions and we've brought change to this House, to
the Standing Orders. Little things that wouldn't matter to the everyday person,
like quorum, the number of Members you need to sit here in the House.
We've
had an opportunity to speak to how we conduct business in terms of filibusters
something that is substantive. We've had the opportunity we're actually here
right now, Madam Chair, on a Wednesday morning, talking about the House of
Assembly, that hasn't been done. It's a way to change.
The next
change that we are going to talk about is having a committee structure in this
House. Something that we haven't seen in about 15 years in this House, something
that fell out of vogue and that the people have talked about, we've talked about
in this House, we talked about when we were in Opposition, the Third Party has
talked about it. We're going to work on making that a reality again as well.
We can
look at petitions; we can look at Members' statements. There are a number of
things we can look at. But one thing we can also look at is the budget process.
Now again, what I will state is that the Members opposite are complaining about
having to stand up and speak in this House to the budget. Now, a couple of
things I will note, that people should remember: (a) they did the opposite when
they were here, big time. They spoke when they were over here, but don't want to
speak over there. Why you won't take the opportunity to speak in this House, I
have no idea.
Madam
Chair, (b) they have had every opportunity if they didn't like the process, to
change the process and they didn't do it; (c) they know they are in the House
and they have an opportunity to stand and ask questions and engage in an actual
meaningful debate, but they choose not to engage in that debate.
I've
said this, if either one of the Members on the other side stood up and asked me
a question about the Justice Department as it relates to budget, to practice, to
procedure, to the issues that we face every day and certainly there are a number
of issues within my department that I deal with on a daily basis, I'm happy to
stand here and engage in a meaningful debate, and this is the forum to do it.
In many
cases, it's hard to do it. Because the way the House is structured we have
Question Period, which again is 30 minutes and it's a chance to stand up and ask
questions, but that's just 30 minutes. When you're having a debate on any other
bill recently we talked about the Health
Professions Act, we talked about the
Patient Safety Act, those are not opportunities to speak to, say, the
Justice Department, or Education.
If they
have questions, they can't ask them during those debates because you have to be
specific; you have to be relevant to those pieces of legislation. Those are good
debates, but they are specific debates. When we talk about Interim Supply, when
we talk about the budget, when we talk about anything that's called a money
bill, this is an opportunity to stand up and actually engage, I think, in a very
meaningful debate.
I would
welcome that opportunity to have that, but right now that is not happening. We
are not getting that. I'd be happy to stand here and speak, I'd be happy to
stand here and answer questions and engage in that debate, but they are choosing
not to do that.
So,
Madam Chair, I look forward, as the Standing Orders Committee moves forward, to
having these conversations, along with House staff who have been there and seen
the evolution of this. I'm happy to have that conversation and to talk about,
what are the things we can do to modernize this House of Assembly. What are the
things we can do to make the debate more relevant, more meaningful? I'm happy to
do that.
I'm also
happy to stand here and speak to the budgetary process as a whole. Again, I've
talked about how the I think the best part, in my mind, when it comes to the
budget debate is the Estimates section, which is an opportunity to stand here in
the House sorry, sit here in the House, and ask questions back and forth. It's
not confined to just a Question Period, where sometimes there's a bit of
theatrics to it. This is a chance to ask actually ask some questions on the
expenditure funds. What did you spend last year? What are you budgeting this
year? Is it higher or lower? Why is it higher or lower? What are the different
things that you're doing?
Then
move into general policy; we've had those debates. I'd love to have that. I
think it's an excellent chance to talk about your department. I can actually do
that right now. I can do that right now and have that. I'll be happy to answer
any questions they have, but I guess what I'm saying, Madam Chair, is that if
the Opposition doesn't ask those questions, it makes it very hard to answer
them.
So I'm
happy to stand here when we have this opportunity to speak now, I hear the
Members of the Third Party chuckling over there, chuckling. So I'm hoping
they'll take an opportunity to stand up and ask some questions. I'd be happy to
speak to it's funny, because it was only a couple years ago I heard them
talking, we're not going to heckle. Madam Chair, I'll put it on the record, it's
funny how things change.
Thank
you for this opportunity, I look forward to another chance.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's an
honour to stand in the House of Assembly once again to debate Interim Supply.
I'm not going to get into the whole debate over the politics around this because
it has happened on both sides, there's no doubt about that.
The only
thing I will say, though, is the only objection I would have with the process is
that if we were just talking about a regular money bill, where you could stand
up and talk about whatever you wanted, that's one thing. The issue here, though,
that I think everybody on this side has, is that it's eating into the budgetary
debate time. That's really our issue, is we would rather see the budget and have
that extra time to debate the actual budget itself as opposed to just taking the
time away from the budget and stand up and talk about whatever it is you want to
talk about, which is really what you're going to see happening; we saw
yesterday, we're going to see again.
There
will no doubt be Members up talking about what a wonderful district they have. I
went to this tea party and that tea party and I'm doing great work for my
district. That has nothing to do with the actual budget. We think that time
would be better spent debating the budget; but, with that said, I have two
choices. I can either sit here and say nothing and watch the government Members
get up one after another and use up all the time this morning, because it's
going to happen, or I can take advantage of some of that time myself to at least
raise what I consider to be some important issues.
I have a
couple that I want to just put on the record at least. I'm not saying if
anything is going to change, but they are issues and I think they need to be put
out there.
The
first one I want to talk and these are health care related. The first one I
want to talk to, and this is a story that's been circulating now on social media
for a while. I think it was in the news as well. It relates to a couple, a
husband and wife, they were let me see. The gentleman is 90 years old; his
wife will be 87 years old in May. The wife now is in Clarke's Beach. Both of
them were in Clarke's Beach because they were Level 2 in a Level 2 facility. The
husband took ill, and as a result of that he's considered a Level 3 and he ended
up getting moved to Saint Luke's in a Level 3 facility.
Now,
obviously, he needed to go there because he needed the care, but the issue we
have is that here he is now having to leave Clarke's Beach and go to Saint
Luke's Home, a 90-year-old man, while his 87-year-old wife, his partner for the
last 50-odd, 60-odd years, whatever it is, is left in Clarke's Beach. She can't
move with him because she's only considered a Level 2, and she can't go to a
Level 3 facility.
Now,
there was a time certainly I know at Saint Luke's, there was a time before it
was taken over by Eastern Health, when it was run by the Anglican Church and so
on, where basically if you went to Saint Luke's and you stayed in the cottages,
at Bishop Meaden Manor and so on, when you got to a point that you could no
longer stay in those cottages, that you would automatically go into the home
that's there. That way, it was called at the time they called it, it was under
a former administration in their earlier days, I think the concept was called
aging in place. That was the concept they were going for.
In other
words, as a senior you could go to a facility, you could start off perhaps in a
cottage. Then when you couldn't stay in the cottage anymore perhaps you could go
into an apartment, and then you would go into the home. Now, of course, we got
this first available bed policy, and of course they're not allowing Level 2s
into a Level 3 facility.
From a
dollars and cents perspective, I understand why that is, because they're saying
if we got a Level 3 facility and we've got doctors and RNs or whatever on staff,
it's much more costly. So the cost per bed, we can't tie up a Level 3 bed and
the cost associated with a person who's only a Level 2, because it's much more
expensive. I understand the dollars and cents, but surely God, from a
compassionate point of view, somewhere along the way compassion has to play a
role in this.
In this
particular case, here we have a couple, as I said he's 90, she's going to be 87
in May, been together practically their whole lives and now they're separated,
Clarke's Beach and St. John's. There's something terribly wrong with that
picture. He'll probably die of a broken heart before she does. The stress it's
having on that individual both individuals, not just one, both of them and
the stress on the family, it's just absolutely terrible, it's absolutely
appalling.
I appeal
to all Members of the House of Assembly; we need to find a better way of taking
care of our seniors. I'm not pinning it on this administration. They've only
been there a year or so. This didn't just happen overnight. This is something
Eastern Health has been doing now for the last two or three, or three or four
years, whatever it is, when they changed the policy. I'm not blaming anybody,
but I'm just saying to all Members of the House that this is a real situation,
real people. This could be my grandmother or grandfather tomorrow. It could be
yours. It could be your parents, or God willing, if we live long enough, it
could be you or I.
Just
imagine now, you're married, with your spouse you've raised a family, you've got
grandkids or whatever, the love of your life, your soulmate, your partner, and
after all those years you get separated like that. Not even being able to see
your husband or your wife or whatever.
I
remember when my mom passed, and my dad was never the same never. For 10 years
he lived after she had passed and he was never the same. I can remember at my
dad's wake, a gentleman came in I didn't know who he was and he came up to
me, he was the caretaker. I didn't know, but he told me he was the caretaker at
the Salvation Army graveyard where my mom was buried they're both buried now
and he came in because he said I knew something had happened to your dad. I
said: What do you mean? He said: I knew something had happened because for the
last 10 years, I could look at my watch, I could look at the day and your dad
was there every single day for 10 years that your mom passed, he was there, sat
there in his lawn chair every single morning basically the same time every day,
for 10 years.
That's
just an example of the connection that people have because she was his life. She
was his life and when she died, part of him did. And that was a comfort he had,
was to be able to at least be close to her. Now imagine when you're alive;
imagine when you have that situation of a couple, been together their whole
life, and they're alive. Now you're going to say to an 87-year-old woman and a
90-year-old man, we're going to separate you. You're going to stay in Clarke's
Beach and you're going to go to St. John's.
There is
something terribly wrong, Madam Chair something terribly wrong with that
system. I don't care, money be damned I apologize if that's unparliamentary
word, but anyway, you get my point. Somewhere along the way, in this equation,
it cannot be simply about dollars and cents. It cannot be. We're talking about
human lives. This is not widgets; this is people. This is human beings and I
urge the government, I urge the Minister of Health and Community Services and
I know he knows what I'm saying is right here, and I know that he would want to
do the right thing; I know everybody would.
It's not
going to happen overnight; I understand that. But we really need to look at a
better model. I think this whole model, like I said, they had years ago, or at
least that was what they were moving towards, this aging in place model, is
something we really need to look at having. So that for example, if you decided
you were going to go to again I'll just use St. Luke's as an example. At St.
Luke's now you have cottages, you've got Bishop Meaden Manor, you've got
cottages and then you've got the home, which is Level 3. You need something in
between. You need something in between.
You need
like an assisted living facility also at that same location, so that you can go
from one stage to the next to the next, but you get to stay at the same place
for your entire time, where you have familiar surroundings, you know the staff,
you have friends, you're close to family, and you get to live and, eventually,
pass away in dignity.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thanks, Madam Chair.
It's an
honour for me to stand, another year, and speak to the Interim Supply bill, Bill
71, and I'll talk a little bit about this bill and what it means and what the
implications are. This bill is compelling government basically to borrow about
$2.7 billion dollars. I'll speak for a minute about why it is government is
borrowing as much as it has to these days, but I just want to comment on the
events here in the House of Assembly yesterday.
I was
fairly surprised that the Opposition Members, the PC Opposition and the NDP
Opposition, stood here and tried to shut down the debate yesterday on the
Interim Supply bill, considering that we had only had 4½ hours, or fewer than
five hours' worth of debate on the Interim Supply bill when both the Opposition
Parties tried to silence the government on speaking about this bill.
It was
especially curious considering, last year, the PC Party chose to spend 19 hours,
I think it was, debating this bill, and I never heard a single complaint. Some
of the same people are sitting over in those seats right now in Opposition. I
never heard a single complaint from them about having that length of time to
discuss an important bill that involves borrowing $2.7 billion dollars. It
really gives you a sense of the PC Party's appreciation for the gravity of
borrowing that massive sum of money that they just want to, after 4½ hours, vote
on it and whatever, and just move on.
That
really, I think, gives people an indication of one of the reasons why we're in
the fiscal crisis, mess, situation that we're in today; because that party
really has no interest in having any sort of debate, just borrow, borrow,
borrow, borrow and don't talk about it. So I thought that was very interesting.
The
Deputy House Leader, the Member for Mount Pearl North got up and he basically
implied and he can stand up and correct me if I'm wrong that that was
because every year the Opposition would drag out the debate. Well, the PC
government had a majority over here if they wanted to not have any further
debate, whenever they wanted to not have any further debate it looks to me
from the numbers from the 12 years that they were in government, every time they
got close to 20 hours, they just shut it down. So we never shut it down as
Opposition one time. I'm just surprised to see the NDP cheerleading for this,
but there is nothing that really surprises me these days in any case.
This is
a good opportunity for Members of government to talk about the state we're in,
why we're in the mess we're in and comment on some of the things that we hear,
the absurd things we hear coming from the Opposition on a daily basis. I have a
lengthy list of this, and I hope that I get a few hours in this debate to
discuss this.
We have
to remember that the PC Party was elected on a promise of no more giveaways.
Everybody will remember no more giveaways, in that somehow everybody previous to
them taking government were giving things away. Which I find is all very
interesting now that the full truth is becoming known about Muskrat Falls and
what that government did to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and future
generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will now have to shoulder
the cost of one of the worst deals, one of the worst giveaways that we have seen
in the history of this province and I would say going back to whenever it was
John Cabot landed on the shore out in Bonavista, I don't think there's been a
worst thing, a worst deal by a governing authority on this Island in this
province in our whole history.
That was
a project there was no Public Utilities Board approval. They couldn't make a
decision because the government would not provide them with the parameters that
they needed to properly examine Muskrat Falls as a power option. It was rammed
through this House of Assembly, those of us who were here I look at the Member
for Torngat Mountains, the Member for The Straits White Bay North, Members who
were here in the House of Assembly who were here for that debate, we were told
we basically weren't going to get Christmas holidays that year if we didn't just
see to the government and just let them get the bill and ram it through the
House of Assembly.
As the
Premier said the other day, and I think people have to remember this because I
looked at oil this week and oil continues this week to be trending downwards
closer to $50 a barrel. This was a project that was sold to us. I remember the
minister of Natural Resources was sitting right here, Jerome Kennedy, telling
the Opposition that oil was going to stay above $100 a barrel for the next 55
years. And here we are, just a couple of years later, and it's getting down
close to 50 bucks cut in half.
So the
people of the province were absolutely misled. We knew, we could tell, we asked
questions and those were times when the NDP used to ask questions about Muskrat
Falls as well, but now they're happy to just let it all go right by and tie
their little orange wagon to the PC Party on Muskrat Falls, which I find
shocking.
We were
told then that Muskrat Falls was the least-cost option. They kept saying it over
and over again. Every one of them, the Members who are there sitting there I
won't name them; they know who they are they would stand up and they would say
it's the least-cost option.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
And I remember saying what
about liquefied natural gas. What about all that natural gas that's being
basically pumped back into the seabed out there now? Because that's what they're
doing. At Hibernia, at White Rose, they're pumping natural gas back into the
seabed. Basically, it's not being used and that renders that resource to a third
of it unusable in the future when you do that with it instead of bringing
natural gas and I remember, I went to Dr. Stephen Bruneau, I think, was a
professor, I went to a lecture down to the university one night and he talked
about how we could have job creation, open up a new industry, there would be
taxation, that we could harness natural gas for the generation of power in
Newfoundland and Labrador. And that was just completely disregarded.
Jerome
Kennedy would stand up here in this seat and tell us that was the least-cost
option because oil was going to stay above $100 for the next 55 years. Sure, no
one in their right mind would believe that. And, of course, here we are just a
couple of years later saying, of course, what everybody knew and people knew
that they were just being sold a bill on goods on Muskrat Falls; people knew.
But it's sad now because what we're looking at is the potential of what we said
in Opposition at the time: of rates doubling.
I know
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, I know he's very well intentioned, he
got up that time, he talked about the plight of senior citizens in the province,
how are people on fixed incomes and there are lots of people who don't have
fancy pensions from the House of Assembly out there. How are those people who
don't have some sort of a pension in addition to their OAS, how are they going
to afford to pay double the power bill? That's absurd. Not everybody can sit
around their propane fireplace and keep warm, right? Not everybody has that
luxury. Not everybody can redo their home and insulate it and make it better for
keeping the heat in. And I'm sure most senior citizens in this province cannot
afford to pay double the power bill. That's just one thing that this PC
government did to people in this province.
It's no
wonder, Madam Chair, it's no wonder that they stood up there yesterday and tried
to silence us, to prevent anybody from standing up over there to say what has
gone on in the past couple of years. If we get 20 hours of debate on the Interim
Supply bill, the same as the PC government did on average for about 12 years in
government, I'm going to stand up here every chance I get and remind the people
of the province why we're in the filthy mess we're in.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
(Inaudible), Madam Chair, if
I may ask I am going to leave of this House to give the hon. Member another five
minutes (inaudible) unanimous consent could be offered.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A few
days ago, I stood in this House and talked about Interim Supply, Bill 71. I'm
pleased to have the opportunity again this morning, Madam Chair, to stand up and
continue on some of the points I was trying to make last week. For those
watching, listening at home, Interim Supply is all about the need for us to
borrow some money so that we can basically keep paying bills until we discuss
the budget. We go through Estimates, as has already been referenced in this
House this morning, and I've got to say going through Estimates last year for
the first time as a new MHA was an interesting experience.
To have
Members opposite, to sit with departments, to go through line by line and pose
questions, to seek clarification, the learning for me and the irony of it is
that we get Members opposite who then come into this hon. House after they go
through Estimate, and they try to make political grandstanding and talk about
the things that we're trying to do as a government to rectify the mess that we
were handed when we formed government in 2015.
The
Leader of the Opposition talks about that there was a $1.1 billion deficit. We
know from the audited financial statements, it was actually $2.2 billion. So we
get criticized many times in this House about going back on commitments. Well,
when you're down an extra billion dollars, it takes some significant changes in
order to catch that up.
I have
to tell you, Madam Chair, one of the comments that were made in this House, and
I take great exception to it, is the Member for Cape St. Francis stood in this
House and said that we, as government Members, were afraid to go in our
districts. Now, I can tell you, I am not afraid to go in my district. I have
spent many, many hours I'm rarely home actually, if you talk to my family. I
spend many, many hours going throughout my district talking to people, talking
about the issues, understanding the impacts of the budget that came down last
year. We knew it was a hard budget. We knew it was going to be difficult on
families and individuals, but we were left with a major mess in this province.
So for
the Member for Cape St. Francis to saying that I, along with my colleagues, were
afraid to go in our districts, Madam Chair, right after the budget came down, I
was in Clarenville. I went to a large skating event at the Eastlink Events
Centre and there were friends of mine, friends who I've known for 20 years,
during the intermission said to me: You got some nerve to be here tonight. I
said: Why is that? With the budget you people brought down. I said: I don't shy
away from anything. I have some understanding of the impact, but I want to hear
from you so that I can bring that back to my colleagues and this hon. House.
So when
the Member for Cape St. Francis says that we're afraid, definitely not not
afraid whatsoever. I look forward to, I welcome every opportunity to go out and
talk to constituents of my district. Just before this hon. House started the
winter-spring session, I met with seniors in my community. There were lots of
references to: Well, Alberta has been able to do things differently than us. I
quickly said to that senior couple: You can't compare what's going on here in
Newfoundland and Labrador with what's happening in Alberta. Number one, we don't
have the population base. Number two, they were budgeting last year a $10
billion deficit on the year. I think their accrued deficit by 2019 will be $58
billion.
As a
province, and if we didn't make some significant changes because of the mess
that we were left, we would have upwards of $22 billion as an accrued deficit in
this province. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that if that day came, we could not
come back from that. So this government had to make some difficult choices; some
choices because of the mess that was left for us.
Now,
we've made some significant investments in this entire province. Last week I
talked about or the last time I stood, Madam Chair, I talked about the issues
impacting a school in my community, which is Riverside Elementary. Yes, we had
to make some tough choices where there were some projects that had to be
deferred, the planned extension on Riverside Elementary when the project was
deferred at 1.6 per cent of the design work done.
Now, I
can tell you, Madam Chair, as the MHA I've been active. I've engaged with the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development to try to find a solution,
a number of solutions. So we've been meeting with the school community, we've
been meeting with the parents, we've been meeting with the English School Board
and we have some solutions that can help rectify the problem of some
overcrowding that we have in the larger spaces, like the cafeteria and the
gymnasium. We've had to come up with alternative solutions because of the mess
we were left.
I'll
tell you another thing that's gone on in my district, Madam Chair. People have
asked me, why has the province been in such a mess? I said well, as the 2015
election was unfolding, of course there were announcements being made
everywhere. In my district, in my home community of Port Blandford, the Leader
of the Opposition showed up with the former MHA and they announced $100,000 for
the design work on a new fire hall and a town hall.
Now,
it's great to make promises. We get lambasted in this House about we make
promises, promises, promises. We have no plan, they say. Well, I can tell you,
in that example of a fire hall, a new fire hall and a town hall for Port
Blandford, it's great to go out and say: vote for us, we'll give you $100,000
and you'll get a new fire hall. I can tell you, Madam Chair, nothing happened
with that commitment, not one thing. Not one thing, it did not move.
I met
with the town council of Port Blandford on a couple of times and it came to the
point that they were tired. The town council was tired of trying to find how
much this project has moved forward, because it had not moved anywhere. Yes,
it's great to go out and say we'll give this to you, but they did nothing with
it, Madam Chair, not one thing. Zero did they do with it.
I can
say that through the help of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment,
I approached him and, you know what, today that design work is moving forward.
The Members opposite talk about that we have no plan, they don't follow through.
That's what we consistently see, they don't follow through, but I can tell you,
Madam Chair, this government does.
We made
commitments. If we see any problems, if problems come to us, we address those
problems. We find the solutions to help the communities in this entire province.
Madam Chair, it has not been easy to fix all those things. Some things will take
time.
I have
less than a couple of minutes before I have to take my seat, but I'll also talk
about the Terra Nova trestle. The Leader of the Opposition was in the community
of Terra Nova and they decided to put a new top on the trestle. As soon as the
top was put on the trestle, all of a sudden realized, it was not structurally
sound. So it had to be closed down.
We've
taken a lot of heat; I've taken a lot of heat. I've been to demonstrations in
the community. People have been very upset and said, why can't we go across the
trestle? Well, an engineer went and did a study and said it was unsafe, but I
can tell you, Madam Chair, we have found the money to fix the problem.
In my
mind, putting a new top on before they did an assessment was a waste of money.
Again, it was another election ploy to try to get re-elected and another mess
that have come to us, to me as an MHA, to try to find a solution. I can tell
you, Madam Chair, the last update I have is that 85 or 90 per cent of that work
has been done. The trestle will soon be open. We have to get engineers in to
reassess it again, but it will connect the T'Railway Park again so that people
who like to snowmobile and get on ATVs and enjoy the outdoors will be able to go
across that bridge again.
Those
are a couple of examples, Madam Chair, of the mess we've been left, and we've
had to find innovative solutions to address some of those concerns that have
come our way and have been left to us as a government.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
It is an
honour to stand on my second occasion to speak to the Interim Supply bill.
Contrary to my last remarks when I spoke a few days ago, what I thought I'd do
today is talk a little bit about that new wonderful department called Service NL
that I'm now minister for.
I've
been on the job for, I guess I'm coming on to week four, and as I was speaking
to my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, this morning, I
am responsible for a lot of things but not everything, as per a particular news
item this morning, and I'll leave it at that.
It's
interesting, when you're speaking about Interim Supply, what you're trying to
do, of course, is to ensure that government continues to function, and Service
NL, as people like to describe it, it is the face of government. There are so
many things we do in that department. It is a fascinating myriad from A to Z,
essentially.
So what
I thought I'd do is just talk about some of the high-level issues. I'm going to
take my first five minutes to do that, and then I want to go to that great
District of Lake Melville and talk a little bit about all the good things going
on up there, because I like to be positive even when others like to try to pull
you back into that cage.
First of
all, Service NL; some of the interesting issues that are on the go right now and
some of the things we do, I just thought I'd throw out a few numbers. We do over
6,000 food premises inspections. There are something like 2,000 inspections and
certificate issuances just for onsite service systems. These are huge numbers in
the volume.
I had a
number here; for example, 20,000 samples of municipal water supplies where we're
actually making sure that water quality is safe to drink and people's health is
protected. There are something like some 12,000 inspections of technical
services, everything from elevators to boiler and pressure vessels, to fire and
life safety inspections. So it's an extremely busy group, and as I find as I
walk around the department and get to know the different people, it's amazing
how different each person's job is in there. So I commend them. I'm looking
forward to getting to know them as much as possible.
Here's
another interesting one that's very directly related to the construction and
building trades industry, and that is the department does some 14,000 electrical
inspections. So before you're approved and certified to proceed, the money that
we are talking about here today needs to go to those staff to do those
inspections so that, frankly, our society can carry on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. TRIMPER:
I could use a bullhorn,
maybe. Maybe that might help.
So it's
a busy department, and some of the busy topical issues, just to give some fodder
to my colleagues in the Opposition, because I'm always looking for questions. I
sit here sometimes a little bored, but give us some issues that are certainly
quite topical these days, things like school bus inspections, our need and our
move to go to a digital by design. Certainly, building accessibility is a very
important topic and I'm heavily involved in that in understanding what needs to
be done and hearing from the various organizations that are concerned.
Pensions
plans are very, very important right now; what's going on around some of our
industrial-dependent communities right now and unfortunate situations around
pension plans and the complex world of actuaries and understanding how a pension
plan works and some of the shortcomings that have occurred unfortunately for
many folks who have come to rely on those pensions and the challenge in sorting
that through. My colleague for Labrador West mentioned just a few days ago some
of the steps that the government is taking to support and help those people.
Occupational disease is another one that's very topical for my colleague for
Labrador West and other folks who happen to be MHAs representing districts
where, for example, there's been mining activity and we're now concerned about
the health of people who've worked on the site.
Certainly, a very topical one as well is the auto insurance system. Taxi drivers
and operators are very concerned. I'm very pleased to say I've been reaching out
to those people in the last few days as they are facing some very tough
financial burden. We're going to be meeting with them as early as tomorrow. So I
look forward to doing that and talking to them.
Another
topical item just from my colleagues for Labrador are two of the recommendations
from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 17 and I think I better not
quote the numbers, but there were two in particular where government has been
asked to help. I've very pleased to say that on behalf of our department and our
government, we will be there to help those people who suffered greatly under
that strategy, I guess I'll call it that, of integrating Aboriginal communities
with Western society and the terrible consequences of that.
So
that's a little bit on Service NL. I look forward to speaking extensively about
that as I go forward, but I also wanted to take about half my time to talk about
the great District of Lake Melville. As a colleague of mine says right now, he
says it's the place where we get 10 months of winter and two months of bad
skidooing. Skidooing is very much a big theme of how we get around. I'm pleased
to say winter is still very solid in Labrador and we're taking full advantage of
it.
Some of
the activities that have been happening lately, and again relating it to
finances and the availability of cash to help people where they need it, for
example, the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay right now, the previous
administration I have to give them some credit had set up a relationship
with that town recognizing the consequences that they were feeling as a
municipality adjacent to a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project in the
Muskrat Falls Project.
They had
allocated some quarter million dollars a year and a special assistance grant to
give them additional capacity to deal with those issues. I'm very pleased to say
that we've just sent them a cheque for last year's amount, and I understand that
the forwarding amount is also in process for this coming year of another quarter
million to help the mayor, his council and that municipality deal with the
pressures that they're feeling on their infrastructure.
Speaking
of mayors, I also want to give a good kudo to the newly minted mayor of
Northwest River, Derek Montague. Many of us heard, and you can only imagine we
certainly felt some issues with the weekend winds and the loss of power outage.
Well, the community of Northwest River suffered for close to two weeks with
serious water supply issues. The mayor, who is new to the office, needed a great
deal of assistance and the former minister of Service NL, under him and his
team, together with my former department and others, frankly, coordinated a
response to assist him, both with staff on the ground but, as I wanted to draw
in this discussion, financial assistance to help them with a particular
situation that they found themselves in.
Not only
were they dealing with water supplies, but there was also some outstanding
challenges around submitting their past accounts and their audited statements as
to how they are operating as a municipality. So thanks to the co-operation and
thanks to municipal leaders who stepped up. We're more than pleased to
co-operate with them and help them out.
Some
other important things that are going on in Lake Melville, and I'm pleased to
say that my recent colleagues were up helping me make some of these
announcements, and that was some $500,000, a half a million dollars, for four
projects, and that included upgrades to the Kinsmen Park with what is known as a
concrete splash pad. It provides a nice recreational escape in the summertime
because we do get some high temperatures there. So this is something the town,
the communities, were looking for, for some time.
Another
important organization, and we speak about them often I often myself don't
know how to help people who are frankly greatest in need of help and assistance
but when I think about an organization like the Salvation Army and Captain Brent
Haas and his wife Melissa and the role that they play in their community and I
see you nodding your head, Madam Chair, because you are aware, as are all my
colleagues for Labrador, the role that the Salvation Army plays, and the funding
that we were just able to provide to them to help them with an expanded kitchen.
I get to work in that kitchen a few times a year helping to serve meals. I still
wonder why they get me to wear a head net because I don't think I have a lot of
hair to keep out of my eyes, but I wear one anyway, all in the spirit of it, but
most important thing
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. TRIMPER:
Yeah, maybe it's a chin net.
But we
do go there and the community does get involved in helping them serve meals to
folks who really are down on their luck. Tip of the hat, Brent, to you and your
team for all that you do.
Another
very important organization that has shown a lot of leadership and is getting a
lot of things done is President Tony Chubbs of the Labrador Hunting and Fishing
Association. Numerous different projects, they're now working on a marina. I've
met with them several times and looking forward to seeing them make progress. We
just provided to them $29,000 for their hunting and shooting range expansion.
Then
another group of volunteers who've been on the go for decades is the Birch Brook
Nordic Ski Club and the support that we've been able to help them recently.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. TRIMPER:
I look forward to speaking
again, Madam Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. Member his
time for speaking has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just
going to stand a few minutes. I heard a few comments in the House of Assembly
the last week or so and I just want to stand and clarify some of the comments
that were made. There has been an issue that has been very dear to my heart the
last six or seven years and that is the acute care hospital in Corner Brook.
People know in the House of Assembly and across the province that I fought very
hard for that with our leader, the Premier of the province, and I know with the
Member for Corner Brook and I know with the help from the Minister of Health and
the Minister of Transportation and Works, we brought this to a very satisfying
announcement in Corner Brook.
Madam
Chair, I heard a comment yesterday from the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi: Let's not go in the past. She was asking questions last week about the
hospital and acute care; let's not go in the past. Do you know why she doesn't
want to go in the past? And I don't mean to be picking on that Member but I can
tell you something that disturbed me when I hear her asking questions about the
hospital in Corner Brook. She has yet to make a positive statement about the
hospital in Corner Brook. She has yet to support the hospital in Corner Brook.
She has yet to support the seniors in Corner Brook.
When we
were working on the deal with the mill in Corner Brook, Madam Chair, I was in
Opposition. I worked with, at the time, Jerome Kennedy who asked me to help out
and I did help out. I remember the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi stood
up in the House of Assembly and started asking questions on behalf of the union.
I came over and spoke to Jerome Kennedy at the time and I said: What's going on?
Jerome said: I don't know. And I said: I don't know. Do you know what I did,
Madam Chair? I went out and I phoned the four union people. I said: Who's
speaking for that Member? Do you know what they said? No one.
She got
in her seat, tried to ruin a $110 million deal for the people of Corner Brook,
and never spoke to the union once. Never spoke to the union members once. I can
tell you why I'm bringing that up and she doesn't want to go back to the past, I
know, I know, bringing up the long-term care hospital in Corner Brook because
Wayne Lucas has got concerns.
I'll ask
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, here you're so concerned about
the seniors in Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland, I ask you a question. The
former Canadian Tire building on Herald Avenue, who does all the blood testing,
who goes in and does a lot of the work for the hospital in Corner Brook, let me
ask you a question: Has anybody asked who clears the roof? Does anybody care who
clears that roof? It's the same deal with the long-term care.
As long
as you've got competent public sector workers inside that building working,
there hasn't been a question yet about renting that building. It's a private
building, operated by a private owner, but inside workers are public sector
workers, as we committed to.
I
remember Wayne Lucas and I don't mean to be picking on him, but I am. I
remember when we were out on the steps and we were in Opposition and they were
talking about private partnership. They wanted to know about the Opposition. I
walked out on the steps in the union rally. Four, five hundred people I walked
out. I walked up to the microphone and I said I'll guarantee you now that public
sector workers will be inside that building. I guaranteed it on behalf of the
Opposition. When the Premier made his announcement, he guaranteed it.
Do you
know what Wayne Lucas did? He walked up to me, shook my hand and said: Eddie,
b'y, there's no misunderstanding where you come from on that. I said: Thank you
very much. When I was out in Corner Brook then, he wouldn't shake my hand now.
Oh, I can't shake your hand; you got rocks in your head. I'll tell Wayne Lucas
now and I'll tell the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I may have rocks
in my head, but my number one concern is the people of Corner Brook, the seniors
of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I hear when the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi stands up and asks questions about private
partnership why don't you get the details? I ask the Member for St. John's
East Quidi Vidi and I ask Wayne Lucas: When was the last time you had a senior
ask you why have I got to leave? When's the last time? If it happened to you,
stand up right here now. The Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is in her
seat, Madam Chair.
If you
took a senior's hand, or when you visit seniors from Corner Brook who's out in
Stephenville Crossing, which I have done, saying when am I coming back to Corner
Brook, if that happened to you, stand up. Stand up and say. I went and said I'll
work as hard as I can to get the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. Here's
your opportunity. Madam Chair, she won't stand up because it hasn't happened. Or
when you've got to send seniors out there are seniors right now being taken
from their family, and we're trying to put a stop to that.
And I
hear the questions coming do you know what Wayne Lucas said at the rally in
Corner Brook? Get this now, it's on tape by the way, anybody in the province
do you know what Wayne Lucas said at the rally? I should have a veto on this
long-term care and the hospital in Corner Brook. I should have a veto. So okay,
Wayne Lucas and I know the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is doing
his bidding for him here in the House. What are you going to do with the seniors
if you got a veto and you don't like it, you don't like who's shovelling off the
roof, you don't like it?
So what
are you going to do with the seniors? What are you going to do with the hospital
in Corner Brook that was built? Public sector workers, we will work on the
radiation. The people who've got to drive in now from Corner Brook and Western
Newfoundland because there's no radiation in Corner Brook, aren't you concerned
about them, I ask the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi? Did you meet with
the hospital group? Did you meet with the city councillor who's pleased? Did you
meet with the action committee who are very pleased? Did you meet with concerned
citizens who are very pleased? Did you meet the chair of the Western Health
Regional Board who's very pleased?
Who is
against this? I would love to know who's against this because it disturbs me
when you worked so hard and I know the Opposition is over there now, they made
at least seven promises the hospital's going to be built since 2007. And that's
in the past; we can't talk about the past. But please, please, when we find a
way to keep seniors home with their families, when we find a way that people who
are going through a tough time through cancer, we find a way to keep them in
Corner Brook, to have their radiation treatment, when we find a way to attract
more specialists to Corner Brook and to Newfoundland and Labrador, let's work
together on this.
I don't
care who shovels off the roof, but what I do care is that they'll get top-notch
quality by public sector workers. This is not what the Opposition had planned.
The Opposition had planned and if anybody wanted to see them, I can get that
documentation. They had to take a seniors' home, take a part of the seniors'
lot, move it over here, get a private company from BC to move in with your own
private workers. That was the plan they had. I know there was Sandy Collins out
saying oh, they just passed the deal that we approved. It's absolutely false.
Sandy Collins, you're making these false statements again on behalf of the
Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
You can laugh over there, but
I can tell you one thing, the Member for CBS, you can stand over there laughing,
you can laugh as much as you like, because you want to pick up for your buddy,
but I can tell you, you, your Leader of the Opposition, or anybody over there,
Sandy Collins also was in the government Members when you guys didn't fulfill
the commitments to the City of Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland for the
seniors and the people.
So don't
stand on your little Twitter box and say what we're doing is wrong, because I
can tell you, if any of you got the courage or the guts, let's go out and meet
some of those seniors who now in the next couple of years won't have to be moved
away from their loved ones. Let's move out, let's go out and see them. Let's go
out and meet with the health care action committee to see if they're pleased. So
don't go using seniors if there's something done right, let's work together.
I can
tell the Member from CBS is over there smiling and laughing now, if you had the
courage, you would stand up also. I can tell you if someone on our staff was
making such false, erroneous, misleading statements like Sandy Collins has made
about the hospital in Corner Brook with the long-term care, he wouldn't be in
our office. But you can't do that though, because the Leader of the Opposition
was the one who made the promises over there with the hospital. I'd love to know
how many times he flew out to Corner Brook to make those statements.
So what
I'm saying here, and I've only got a minute left, and I say to the Member of St.
John's East Quidi Vidi, go out and meet some seniors. Go out and sit down with
some seniors. Go out and meet with the action committee, see what you know,
I'll say to the Leader of the Opposition: Do you know who most of the action
committee is? The ones you never called about the deal for Corner Brook Pulp and
Paper. They're the ones on the action committee. Do you know who most of them
are? They're union members at the mill. They're your brothers and sisters.
They're your brothers and sisters out there.
It's
such a good news announcement and to stand in this House of Assembly and give
them some kind of impression that all of a sudden we're just going to put people
in there unqualified to do the work at the hospital, unqualified to do the work
at the long-term care facility, when it's just not true it's just not true.
There comes a time when you have to break ranks. I feel that one of the times
that you should break ranks is when it comes for the seniors of province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I worked
hard with this previous government, and this is where I've got to give Tom
Marshall credit. It took a while, but when Tom Marshall did that hospital study
for radiation when he was premier of the province, it caused a lot of stir. I
have to give him credit because he stood up and said the information I'm getting
is not correct and because of that study that Tom Marshall did, there will be
radiation in Corner Brook so people don't have to travel, and also there will be
room for a PET scanner in Corner Brook. That's where I give Tom Marshall credit
for finally breaking ranks with his own department, his own government and
saying we need to do a proper study.
Thank
you, Madam Chair; I'll be back again to have another few words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll
take advantage of the time and bring up a couple more issues. The next issue I
just want to raise, Madam Chair, is the issue of paid family caregivers. So it's
another health issue. That was a program that was brought in I guess by the
previous administration maybe four or five years ago. I believe it was Minister
Sullivan was the minister of Health at the time, if memory serves me. I thought
it was a good program, and I still think it's a good program, because certainly
there are lots of situations where you don't have the availability in a lot of
cases in certain parts of the province of home care agencies and so on to take
care of our seniors and persons with disabilities and so on who require the
care. So when this program was announced to allow family members to be the
caretakers, I thought it was a great initiative. I supported it then and I
support it now.
The only
issue I want to raise, and this is something I certainly have I know I've
raised it with the Minister of Health and Community Services. I sent him a
couple of letters on it as it relates to a specific case, and I'm not going to
get into the details of that specific case because it's like anything, in all
cases there are usually three sides to every story. There's my side, your side,
and then something in between is usually what's totally accurate.
Regardless of any specific case or not, the issue still remains the same. That
is that under this program a spouse cannot be the paid family caregiver. Now, I
don't know exactly what the rationale is for that. I did receive a response from
the department and, basically, the only response I got was that the spouse has,
I guess, an inherent responsibility to look after the spouse. In other words,
you're married, you're husband and wife, you shouldn't have to get paid. You
have that inherent responsibility to look after your wife or your husband in any
case.
I
understand that, and I understand that government don't want to open up the
floodgates and have everybody caring. To have all of a sudden 1,000 people
putting in applications to say I want to stay home and look after my wife or
look after my husband or whatever. I guess there's a fear it could get out of
hand and so on, and I understand that.
In the
particular case that I had some dealings with, it was a case of a spouse who
she was dying. She was terminally ill. In this case, the gentleman who had been
working in Alberta, going back and forth and so on, he ended up having to leave
his job to stay home to be with his dying wife. She has since passed, but the
point, I think, is that and what I had suggested at the time to the minister
and to the department, and I just want to put it on the record again here on the
floor of the House of Assembly, is that while I understand the rationale and
this inherent responsibility for a spouse to look after another, the fact of the
matter is if I had an ailing spouse, and my brother, as an example, had an
ailing spouse, we could look after each other's wives and get paid for it under
that policy as paid family caregivers.
A
daughter could look after her mother. A sister could look after a sister and so
on, but the husband can't look after the wife or the wife can't look after the
husband. You have kind of a double standard, and the cost is what the cost is.
Whether I pay a stranger, whether I pay the daughter, whether I pay the aunt,
the cousin, the niece, the nephew or I pay the husband, it's still the same
cost, no different.
Of
course, the issue is, I guess, and what my suggestion was, is that we simply
tweak the policy to say yes, under normal circumstances we recognize that
inherent responsibility and so on, and the policy maintains just the way it is
under normal circumstances; however, in the case where the spouse is deemed to
be terminally ill, palliative, if you will, by a recognized physician, so you
would have all that medical documentation to back up, it's not a subjective type
of thing, it would be somebody is terminally ill. In that situation, the spouse
could be considered the paid family caregiver.
Again,
we were just talked about, when I was up speaking before, about the cruelty of a
situation where you have one spouse separated from another in a different
nursing home because of Level 2 versus Level 3 and so on. This is another case.
Like in this specific case that we had, here's a fellow working in Alberta,
naturally he needed to be home and wanted to be home to care for his ailing wife
who was terminally ill. I think there's nobody here, if you think about it, if
that was your mom and dad, your grandmother or grandfather, if it was you or
your spouse, you would want that as well.
Again, I
am not saying that we totally do away with the program or we turn it upside
down, inside out. I'm saying maintain the program and just simply put in a
provision in policy that allows for that special circumstance where the spouse
is terminally ill, as certified by a doctor, you'd have all the proper paperwork
and checks and balances and so on, in that case the spouse could be the paid
family caregiver. So I just wanted to put that out there again for the
minister's ears and the government's ears as something that could be considered.
I only
have about three minutes left and there are numerous things I could talk about.
I do want to talk about Muskrat Falls again. I'm glad the Minister of Education
raised that, but two minutes and 43 seconds is not going to cut it. So I'm going
to defer until I get another opportunity, but I did listen to the Minister of
Service NL talking about the various things that fall under his department.
There's no doubt, there's an awful lot of regulations and legislation and so on
that does fall under Service NL. I'm well aware of it, as the former critic for
that department.
One of
the items I raised in the House of Assembly when I was critic for Service NL, it
never did get addressed by the former administration and I haven't seen anything
really come forward now with this new administration. Maybe it's in the works. I
don't know, but we continue to have issues in this province as it relates to
landlord tenant's issues and issues with boarding housing. In some cases unsafe
boarding houses and unsafe apartments and living conditions, so-called slum
landlords as we hear it referred to sometimes.
I know
also on the other side of the equation there are issues and concerns that
landlords themselves have and protections they require and things that need to
be changed to bring the landlord tenancy act here in Newfoundland and Labrador
more in line with modern times and so on.
It is
very important, because housing is one of our basic necessities that everybody
needs. It's just not a matter of housing; it's a matter of safe housing. Because
a lot of times when we're talking about safe housing and so on, we're talking
about our most vulnerable people. We're talking about people sometimes who have
mental health and addictions issues. We're talking about people with
disabilities. A lot of times we're talking about seniors and so on. We have a
responsibility in this province, as legislators, to ensure that those people
have safe living conditions. So it's been a long time that we've been waiting
for changes to the landlord tenancies act. It has been brought up in this House
of Assembly numerous times. So I'm hopeful and I throw it out there to the
minister, because he's there, he's listening that I hope we're going to see some
changes coming forward
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
in the near future.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once
again, it's an honour to rise and talk to Bill 71, Interim Supply. Mr. Chair,
not too long ago if someone asked me anything about curling, I would have been
at a loss. One person told me that it's placing a well-placed shot on the ice.
My initial thought, as a hunter, is that this is a lot like seal hunting, Mr.
Chair. But thanks to some of my colleagues, I gained a good knowledge of it and
I was certainly tuned in last weekend. I don't mean to be disrespectful to the
Third Party but, on behalf of the people in Nunatsiavut and Natuashish, I'd like
to bring forward congratulations on behalf of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
I know that you follow social
media; there were a lot of people in my district in Nunatsiavut and Natuashish
that were tuned in last weekend to watch Team Gushue win the Brier. It was
certainly an honour to see them up close and personal yesterday. I know a lot of
people in my district didn't have that opportunity and, once again, it was
certainly good to see them and to bring forward congratulations on behalf of the
people I represent.
Mr.
Chair, it's victories like this that we saw last weekend that brings a level of
unity to our province. We saw it from Nain to the South Coast of the Island
portion of our province. We saw it from the West Coast to the East Coast, and
everyone was so proud of Team Gushue. The last time I saw this was, I believe,
2006 when Team Gushue again united the country.
We were
proud to be Canadians at that time, and that's when Team Gushue won Olympic Gold
and represented our country and not just our province. So it's certainly good to
see the team from Newfoundland and Labrador be renamed Team Canada and, once
again, take our hopes to the international curling event in Edmonton.
So I
just want to get that out there that we are proud and I don't think it should be
a one-time thing to congratulate a team that did what they did last weekend. I
think at every opportunity we should be proud of Brad Gushue and his team.
Yesterday, I was a bit astonished, Mr. Chair, that both the PC Opposition and
the Third Party wanted to put an end to Interim Supply. I tend not to speak my
full allocation of minutes. Maybe I don't have that gift for gab, Mr. Chair, but
I do like to make a point and Interim Supply, the four years that I was in
Opposition, gave us that opportunity to say things on behalf of our districts,
on behalf of the people we represent, and to bring issues forward.
Now,
either the Third Party and the Opposition have a level of satisfaction to how
things are unfolding, or they're looking to score brownie points. In the past 16
years, debate on Interim Supply has ranged from 12 to 20 hours. So we would have
to talk about Interim Supply for the next two weeks straight to even come close
to Interim Supply under normal circumstances, Mr. Chair.
If they
choose not to talk to the bill and I know the Member for Mount Pearl
Southlands is rising on his feet and he's bringing issues forward. I have to
commend him for that. So we've all got issues that we like to bring forward from
time to time and I'd like to talk about Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Chair, everybody in this hon. House and everybody in this province know where I
stand on Muskrat Falls. I didn't support it, I don't support the project, and
I'll just outline a few reasons why. I'll go back to Bill 29 when we sat in
Opposition. I didn't know what a filibuster was until then, but we pushed the
issue on Bill 29 for, I think, 70-80 hours. We had a small team, but we pushed
it until we weren't allowed to do it anymore.
Bill 29
was set up so that the former government could push Muskrat Falls through
without having to explain themselves to the province, and they did that. They
did it knowing that the province was in a financial mess. They did it without
telling the truth to the people of the province. What I mean by that, Mr. Chair,
is that they told us that we had a $1.1 billion deficit. The truth is that we
had a $2.2 billion deficit. That's double an already staggering amount.
Now,
Muskrat Falls, we stood up and we laid out all of the factors as to why this
project shouldn't go ahead. It was the least-cost option. They didn't listen to
us. They didn't listen to any concerns that were forwarded. They pushed the
project through, even though the statistics state that a project such as this
would have cost overruns that would go anywhere from 54 per cent to 108 per
cent. They pushed it through.
Then
came Bill 60 and Bill 61, where they wouldn't let any other power-producing
entity come forward for the next 50 years so they could protect the project
that's causing the financial mess we're in now. They did that to protect the
project that's bringing us a lot of chaos; a project that I don't agree with.
When I
got elected in 2011, the people in my district had one task for me that topped
everything. They wanted broadband. Now, Mr. Chair, the United Nations says that
broadband is a human right. For four years while I sat in Opposition, there was
no movement. As a matter fact, a former minister in the former administration
stood up in the House and said broadband for Northern Labrador, not on my watch.
You can go to Hansard and you can see
that, Mr. Chair.
In 2015,
when we formed the government and there was new federal government, a government
that we could work with, six months and an announcement was made for broadband
upgrades in the district that I represent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Now, this didn't come easy.
This is a result of partnerships; people working together. We had input from the
Innu Nation, from Nunatsiavut, from Vale, from Bell Aliant, from the federal
government and from the provincial government, Mr. Chair, and we put the plan
together.
The only
thing I can say right now, Mr. Chair, before I sit down is that the work is
being done. It's not happening fast enough for many of us, but it is being done.
By spring we should see everyone on the North Coast of Labrador hooked up to a
broadband upgrade that will help connect us with the rest of the region, the
rest of the province, the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I rise
again to speak to Interim Supply. I had prepared some remarks. I have to say, I
come from a background where my job was to be fairly detailed. You went through
what you were going to do in your mind before you actually did it. It's a kind
of form of cognitive rehearsal, I think, the psychologists would talk about. And
that's kind of the way I've approached these things, but I have to say over my
short time here I've come to appreciate a different way of doing things, which
is a lot more spontaneous. Indeed, in the Westminster system you're not actually
allowed to use notes. You're expected to speak extemporaneously to try and
encourage a kind of more lively exchange.
So what
I'm going to try my hand at is picking up on some of the things I've heard this
morning. I was actually surprised by comments from the Minister of Education, as
well my colleague from Torngat Mountains, that in actual fact the length of
debate from previous years around Interim Supply was sometimes in excess of 24
talking hours, which is a significant length of time considering as of yesterday
we'd not quite got to five.
The
other feature of the Westminster system is the concept of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition, and it's phrased like that for all sorts of historical reasons
because it balances loyalty to the Crown with a duty to oppose government. What
I regard as a significant failing today is that crowd opposite have turned it
into a caucus meeting with their backs to the speaker. Really and honestly, this
is their duty, their role, their responsibility to hold the government to task,
to explain itself as to the legislation that it brings before the House.
This is
a bill, Interim Supply, which essentially asks every man, woman and child in
this province to go into debt for a significant amount of money, not something
to be taken lightly; yet, only two of the six Members opposite, seven Members
opposite, actually have the courtesy of looking at the speaker during the
discussion. Two point seven billion dollars per person divides out to well in
excess of $20,000. I think it would be worthy of a little attention and maybe a
little discussion by them rather than simply vacating the space, which I have to
say, credit to my colleague from Mount Pearl Southlands, has taken up the role
as best as he can.
My
colleague here talked about not talking about the past, but we really have to
because, again, a theme I brought out when I first got up to speak to Interim
Supply was this conceptual disconnect from the Members opposite between our
current state of affairs and anything they might have done over the last 12
years. Really that's, I think, again from a psychology point of view called
dissociative bias. This has nothing to do with us, you have to fix it, this is a
problem and its arisen day novo. Really, from a conceptual point of view, our
challenge is to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to coin a farming
expression from where I practiced last before immigrating to scenic St. Anthony
on the Northern Peninsula.
The
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands I think makes a very good Opposition MHA.
He, unfortunately, has latched on to a philosophical device called casuistry
which I think he could possibly be regarded as the king thereof. What that is is
a philosophical device which allows you to argue the exception for everything.
There is no policy; there is no generalizable theme that can be derived.
Everything has to be an exception. I think it's summed up in a couple of his
phrases, like money be damned, I think was one of them, and it can't be about
the dollars.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, the disconnect from the previous PC government and
today's situation feeds into a problem from which we cannot disconnect
ourselves. Money can't be damned and it has to be about the dollars, because
$2.7 billion, which is Interim Supply, which is not the whole year. It is simply
a fraction thereof, traditionally, slightly more than a third of the year rather
than a quarter, to simply keep the lights on and pay the salaries come the 1st
of April.
I think
to argue that regardless of the case or regardless of the policy there has to be
an exception is fine if that is actually an exception, but when you generalize
that to every case that comes before you, really and honestly, you cannot have a
policy. The problem with casuistry when taken to the extreme is it's actually a
form of philosophical anarchy. That's essentially what the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands advocates, with the best of intentions, but the road to that
dark and fiery place is paved with good intentions, unfortunately.
I think
the challenge becomes we have to deal with the situation in which we find
ourselves. I admire him for actually getting up and fulfilling his role and his
duties; yet, at the same time, have to chastise him for the hollowness from a
conceptual point of view of any of the arguments he's put forward. They are
well-intentioned and made with a good heart but devoid of any intellectual
merit.
Another
issue for the morning, which was alluded to by my colleague who shares a similar
hairstyle to mine, and again he may have had to wear a hairnet to go into
facilities. In my previous job I still had to wear a hat, despite my follicular
challenges.
Interestingly enough, we spent a couple of day over the previous sessions
talking about amendments to the Health
Professions Act. You know, some would regard that as kind of red-tape,
i-dotting, bureaucracy. Really and honestly, the headlines on CBC news this
morning, and obviously I can't comment on specific charges laid before the court
or specific details, but again conceptually the idea of circumcising people on
kitchen tables in freshwater cabins is one which has no philosophical or
therapeutic merit. It is those kind of things that the
Health Professions Act and its sister
legislation the Medical Act and the act under which the ARNL is constituted are
fundamental instruments.
You go
back historically, and I think you will find the medical acts were the first to
regulate a profession done from the point of view of safety of the public;
although, interestingly enough, at the time other professional groups regarded
those as turf protection and in some way barriers and a form of protectionism.
They were protectionism, but they were designed for the protection of the
general public, contrary to some of the arguments you've seen since.
I think
over the years the medical profession particularly has been somewhat hot and
cold on who they were protecting, but I think with the
Health Professions Act and the good sense of this House, and the
collective wisdom, the value of having legislation such as we passed yesterday,
and making that operate more smoothly through amendments in the light of a
consultative process with the council highlights the parliamentary, the
Westminster system, at its best. I think we can take some comfort from that.
But
again, to loop back to the concept of the Westminster system, I really feel, and
as I said on my previous speaking to Interim Supply, it is our job also to call
out misinformation and errors of omission and commission. We've talked about the
errors and the disastrous approach that got us into this fiscal situation, but
the main error of today is one of utter omission by the Opposition to actually
engage in any meaningful dialogue on a significant piece of legislation, and
they are failing in their duty to the public.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
great to have an opportunity to stand and speak once again. Mr. Chair, I suppose
I could get a little bit defensive and so on from the comments across the way,
but I'll just say that rather than stand here on high pontificating to my
colleagues, I'll continue to raise issues of importance to the people of the
province and to the people I represent.
I make
no apologies for that. I'll say to the Minister of Health I'm not asking
for anything that's unreasonable. The difference between you and I is I have
compassion. The minister is over there talking about the fact we're talking
about health care and we're talking about seniors and he said, yes, it is all
about the dollars it all about the dollars. Well, I would remind the minister
that we were put, elected in this House of Assembly, to care for and to look
after the people. We're not running a business.
I understand that we have to be concerned about the fiscal
situation in our province. We all know the mess that we're in; we all know that.
We all know the debt that we've accumulated, and we all know that something had
to be done to address the debt. We all know that. It's a matter of extremes. I
think the only thing that I've ever disagreed with is the degree of which we've
tackled it. But we got to remember that we were put here, elected by the people,
to look out for their needs.
The only two things that I raised that he seems to have
some issue with is I talked about the fact that in the case of a home family
caregiver, in the case of where one spouse is deemed palliative,
that the husband or the wife could take care of the spouse. That has nothing to
do with dollars and cents. We can pay the sister or we can pay the husband. We
can pay the aunt or we can pay the wife. We can pay the daughter, we can pay the
son, or we can pay the husband. Dollars and cents do not come into the equation.
We're talking about making a minor change to policy that will cost no more money
but will allow a husband or wife to be with their spouse in their final days at
home before they pass away, maybe after 50 years of marriage.
And I
apologize to the minister if somehow he has some problem with that, that he has
a problem with being compassionate for the people that we elected; too bad for
you if you don't like it, Sir.
I would
also say, the other issue that we talked about, Mr. Chair, also related to an
issue of compassion, and we're talking about separating two people, separating a
husband and a wife that, in this case, have been married for over 50 years, 87
and 90 years old. One is going to be out around the bay and the other one is
going to be in St. John's, not able to see each other. All I suggested was that
we have to, somehow in this policy, insert a little bit of compassion here.
I would
say to the Member for Virginia Waters there, if you have some concerns about
this, if you think I'm wrong, if you think that it's okay what's happening with
this couple, you stand up and say it's okay. You stand up and say it would be
okay if it was your grandparents, I would say. It's not okay. There's something
wrong with that and it's something that we need to fix.
There's
nothing wrong with exploring other models, as was being explored in the past in
terms of this aging in place where we set up a system in the future it may not
help this couple, but in the future have a system whereby we try to put
facilities, group them together where you have your cottages, you have your
Level 2, you have your assisted living, and then you have your Level 3 so that
people can age in place with their family, with their loved ones, with their
friends.
Now, I
don't see anything wrong with that. It's called compassion. That's why we were
elected and, obviously, we're lacking an awful lot of compassion when you look
at some of the things that have been done. The people I've talked to, the
seniors I've talked to, we're definitely lacking compassion.
I think
it's absolutely ridiculous for the minister to stand up here and try to browbeat
me because I'm bringing forward issues that affect the day-to-day lives of
seniors in our province and what we're doing to them. And that's a bad thing
somehow. Somehow I don't know what I'm doing. Intellectually, I'm not at his
level because I actually care about people.
Well,
I'm sorry. I'm sorry if that upsets you, Minister, but I'm here, elected by the
people, to do what's best for them. I will continue to bring these issues
forward and I make no apologies for it. I said I wasn't going to get upset, but
I did.
AN HON. MEMBER:
So much for that.
MR. LANE:
Yeah, you're right; so much
for that.
Anyway,
I have four minutes. The issue was raised with Muskrat Falls and I want to talk
about that again. We can talk about this forever and a day. We all know what
happened, who voted for what and so on. I raised my hand; I voted for it. I have
serious concerns about the information that I was given and the information that
has now come forward.
I have
serious enough concerns that I have written the Auditor General on numerous
occasions. I've written the Premier and I've asked for a complete and thorough
audit of Nalcor, of some of the very serious allegations that are out there
relating to Nalcor, relating to Muskrat Falls, projects that have been awarded
and so on. I would like a full and thorough review.
So far,
I have not received any support from my colleagues in the House of Assembly
have not received it. Never even got a response from the Premier; two letters
I've sent him now and not even so much as an acknowledgement. Why he would not
want to do that is beyond me.
I would
say to all of my colleagues and colleagues opposite, you cannot simply sit back
and say: Well, I didn't vote for it; wash my hands of it. I didn't vote for it.
You voted for it. It's all your fault. Let her go and whatever happens, happens.
We'll just blame it all on you. It doesn't work that way.
We have
very, very serious allegations that have been put out there, allegations of
conflict of interest. The former chair of the board, before leaving, publicly,
it was out there. Remember, let's load the guns. Let's get the ammunition. I
know there was a conflict of interest.
Nobody
has investigated that. Then you have to ask yourself the question: Well, why did
that only come out when he was under fire on the way out the door, after the
Budget Speech that condemned them? Why did he only mention it then? He would
have been chair for a long time before that, between him and the other chair,
the former chair. He didn't say anything then. He only said it after he felt
that he was under attack by the government.
So if he
knew the conflict existed, if he was so sure the conflict existed at that time,
he had to know it existed long before that and he didn't say anything. Doesn't
that raise a red flag to anybody? Who else could be under in conflict of
interest? I don't know. Could there be more? Maybe so, maybe not.
We have
a former, allegedly a former engineer of Nalcor who's out there quoted in social
media. It's all out there, Uncle Gnarley's Blog, Des Sullivan. I don't know if
it's true or not but, by the god, the allegations are very, very serious. He's
talking about people actually falsifying numbers and putting it out there to the
public. I mean that's what's there. I encourage every Member to read it. If you
haven't read it, whether we can prove it or we know it's true or not, read it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
He's actually saying that
numbers were falsified. He quit because they were falsifying numbers. That is
serious. This is serious stuff.
Why
would we all not want to get the Auditor General in to investigate this stuff to
find out what's going on? You can't simply say well, I wasn't there, I didn't
vote for it, so therefore it doesn't matter. You know about it, I just told you.
You know about it, we all know about it. These things have to be looked in to.
I'm blown away why we wouldn't want to investigate these things.
Give the
Auditor General the resources he needs to go in there and let the chips fall
where they may. If everything is done above board and there is no conflict and
there was no numbers falsified and all that, as the allegations say, if that
didn't happen, if that's all hearsay, it's not true, let them prove it.
Let the
AG go out, do the investigation and say all that was wrong. Now we've cleared
the air, we know there's no issue, but we don't know that. We don't know that.
For to have those red flags waving in front of us and we're not doing nothing
about it, it blows my mind. And I'm someone who voted for it. I'm someone who
voted for the project, and I'm saying we need to get the Auditor General into
Nalcor.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't
go into the numbers and some of the information I had in front of me the last
time. I do want to speak for a few moments on some of the communities in my
district, but before I get there I would like to, in a preamble, point out that
while some governments, and some people for that matter, may have stockpiles of
cash lying around and can dispense of the need to borrow, we on the other hand
as a government need to ensure continuing necessary services for our people
which, without doubt, requires the passage of Bill 71.
I'd also
like to say to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands on the issue of
compassion, I've lived a full lifetime, especially in my role as a mayor and a
councillor, with great concern for the people in Botwood, Newfoundland. I can
assure you that I totally agree with your concept of compassion, but I also want
to reassure you and everyone in this House that in my brief dealings over the
last year and a half or so with the Minister of Health that he too is a
compassionate individual.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Now, to my other colleague
for Cape St. Francis, a former mayor pleasure to know him. A former hockey
player; we've got stuff in common. I know, I've done it myself on occasion,
probably not chosen the wording I should have chosen, and I know that's what
happened to you a little while back, on calling us out on the issue of being
fearful of going back to our districts.
The
little bit I know of my colleague across the way from Cape St. Francis, and I
think he should know a little bit about my background, is I went into the
corners, as he did, with some bigger and meaner people than myself and I've
never shied away from anyone. I'd like to think that each and every person in
this House are there for the people they represent and the people back in each
and every one of our districts can be reassured that, from my experience so far,
you've got good representation here, on both sides of the House. There are no
cowards here. I just wanted to get that out there.
Anyway,
Mr. Chair, if I may have your indulgence. Today is my dad's birthday, and he's
79. He's back in Botwood.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
He's celebrating his birthday
on this day that's known as the Ides of March, and we all know the history of
that.
Mr.
Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Exploits District. My
district exemplifies close-knit communities, cultural preservation,
consideration of Aboriginal history and rights, economic improvement, natural
resource management and promotion of tourism.
The
Exploits District encompasses a varied and distinct group of communities which
range from the more populated Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, which serves as the
main service area for the area, to less populated communities such as Bishop's
Falls, Norris Arm, Botwood, Peterview, Northern Arm, Phillips Head, Point of
Bay, Cottrell's Cove, Fortune Harbour, Point Leamington, Leading Tickles and
Glovers Harbour, which contribute much to the district in their own significant
ways.
Each of
these towns, communities and outports have their own rich history relating to
the earliest settling of the area with its eventual unfortunate eradication of
our native people, the Beothuks, to early industrialization and use of our
resources in logging, papermaking and fishing.
Exploits' considerable milestone in business, manufacturing, military activities
and aviation make this district one of the great stories of perseverance and
success.
Grand
Falls-Windsor; as I share this flourishing community with my colleague, the
Minister of Transportation and Works, I want to point out that despite the
recent turndown in the area's economy, Grand Falls-Windsor, even with the
departure of Abitibi-Consolidated, has steadfastly continued to not only
survive, but thrive.
The
closure of Teck's Duck Pond mine also meant a loss of many jobs throughout the
region. The current state of the mineral exploration in nearby districts has
affected several companies in Grand Falls-Windsor as well. A bustling mini
metropolis, Grand Falls-Windsor is the largest town in the district, and the
third-largest town in the province.
Grand
Falls-Windsor is a crucial service centre for the entirety of Central
Newfoundland. It boasts superior industrial and commercial supply
establishments, as well as wholesale distributors and retail stores. Health
care, religious associations, social activities, such as the Exploits Valley
Salmon Festival, and service clubs are widespread. Fortunately, most of Grand
Falls-Windsor businesses are healthy and flourishing and the town slogan relates
Perfectly Centered is well-suited.
The
natural beauty of the Grand Falls was the basis of the town's name, as in 1768,
Lieutenant John Cartwright named the falls as he was following the Exploits
River. One hundred and thirty-seven years later in 1905, Alfred Harmsworth, also
known as Baron Northcliffe, decided to look for a new site to build a pulp and
paper mill due to the possibility of war in Europe. Harold Harmsworth and Mayson
Beeton discovered the Grand Falls and informed Alfred that they thought it
suitable as the location for a pulp and paper mill because of the heavily wooded
area for pulp and lumber, the potential for hydro-electricity and the nearby
port of Botwood.
The
Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company was formed on January 7, 1905. The mill
was constructed and the first paper was produced on December 22, 1909. Only
workers at the mill and private businesses were allowed to live in the Town of
Grand Falls; others settled in Grand Falls Station. Later, at the time of the
incorporation in 1938, it was named Windsor for the English royal family. Since
the towns' amalgamation in 1991, the name has been changed to Grand
Falls-Windsor.
The AND
Company set up a town which catered to the social, religious and athletic
requirements of all of its residents. Several churches were established in the
area once it was settled with permanent residents, and a priority was put on
music and the arts in the town. Many types of sport teams were organized. Grand
Falls was incorporated in 1961; eventually the Price Brothers and Company
Limited bought a large amount of AND Company stock.
Grand
Falls-Windsor is the home to the Mary March Provincial Museum, named for
Demasduit's European given name, exhibiting the Beothuk people, geology,
industry and natural history. Another tourist attraction, the Salmonid
Interpretation Centre, situated on the Exploits River salmon ladder, sees
thousands of visitors each season.
The
Loggers' museum located within the Beothuk park has sadly been closed due to
financial constraints following the privatization of the park. That particular
exhibit was a copy of the actual living and working conditions borne by the
loggers during the high point of the logging industry in Central Newfoundland.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That was a great exhibit.
MR. DEAN:
It was, yes.
The
Exploits Salmon Festival is a very popular event which has presented world-class
musical groups, as well as local talent. Currently the AND Another
Newfoundland Drama Company the Kiwanis Music Festival, now in its 52nd year,
the Gordon Pinsent Centre for Arts, the Joe Byrne Memorial Stadium and the
Classic Theatre provide popular entertainment, in addition to other private
establishments in the area.
The
town's hockey team, the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts, is one of the most
successful teams in the province and is always a great drawing card at the Joe
Byrne Memorial Stadium. The Centennial Ball Field is a consistent venue for
larger events such as the Salmon Festival; for those who enjoy the great
outdoors, there are plentiful salmon in the Exploits River attracting thousands
of anglers each year, and considerable hunting, trapping and white-water
opportunities.
Also
available to those who wish to apply are provincial licences and permits.
Throughout the whole of the Exploits District, there are thousands of privately
owned cabins and cottages. Students living in Grand Falls-Windsor are provided a
curriculum from kindergarten to grade 12, with continuing education available at
the College of the North Atlantic, as well as private schools Corona and Keyin
Tech. A government tree nursery is located at Wooddale, in addition to many
private farms which produce for local stores and their vegetable warehouses and
stands. They are also several floral nurseries and bee farms.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll
pick up this later and complete my report on the communities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I wasn't
going to try and monopolize the proceedings of the House this morning. As I say,
I would regard that as the duty of the Opposition. But I felt constrained just
to add a little commentary to the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands who seemed
to get rather exercised in his last polemic to the House.
And I
apologize to him if I like language. I have always enjoyed language and, indeed,
one of my former high school teachers lamented the fact that I was going to soil
myself with matters of science rather than concentrate on the humanities in
English when I went to university.
I think
there are a couple of themes I'd like to pick up on from his diatribe. It's
interesting that today is the Ides of March because the term pontificating,
which he levelled at me, actually comes from the word pontiff. Everyone
assumes that actually is associated with His Holiness the Pope, but in actual
fact it predates that and it was a job assigned to one of the elected officials
in Rome, and a tradition that continued with the election of the Pope.
It
wasn't actually a bad word in the good old days. It meant speaking with some
kind of authority and almost a divine connection, but I can't claim the divine
connection, for sure.
I think
I'd like to pick up on the theme of hard decisions and compassion. I think,
really, to suggest that somehow we, on this side of the House, lack compassion
because we have to make hard decisions are joining too many dots. We, as I said,
inherited a situation which we did not craft, but we have to remedy. There is an
enormous fiscal challenge before this province and I would say to the Member
opposite, at the moment, we do not have an abundance of resources.
Twenty-five billion dollars went out the window. If I had that money, I would be
able to offer spousal accommodation to people with different levels of care and
there would be no constraints on the system at all. So it has to be about using
the dollars differently and getting value for money out it.
Unfortunately, the only way this couple could be reunited was for me to go and
pick somebody and say you can't go there; you actually have to leave there so I
can reunite this couple. There isn't the money in the Treasury to do this
because, not only are the cupboards bare, the previous PC crowd sold the
cupboards. There's nothing. There isn't anything there at all.
On the
point of view of compassion, I think it's very unwise for any individual to
claim some kind of insight into how others feel. They can talk about what I say,
they can talk about the arguments I use, and I have no problem with that.
There's no argument that can't be refined by debate, but I think it is the
height of arrogance of any and all kinds to assume that somehow the Member
opposite has some insights into my feelings.
Really
and honestly, I do come from a background that makes warm and fuzzy a little
difficult sometimes and my colleague, my parliamentary secretary, reminds of
this and tries to encourage me to show a face that by and large surgeons keep
hidden. I did allude to it, in actual fact, in my comments when I spoke to
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the excellent amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act to deal with young
drivers and alcohol.
There
was a famous surgeon called Leriche who is noted in vascular circles, although
he did predate the speciality, and he said that at 4 in the morning physicians
visit a graveyard, and that graveyard is those folk that they don't cry over
during the day. And I think really I would just like to leave the Member for
Mount Pearl Southlands to dwell on that concept for a moment before he accuses
anybody of lacking of any kind of feeling or possessing feelings. He is not in
any position to have any insight at all into how I or anybody else in this room
might feel.
And I
think it is the height of arrogance
AN HON. MEMBER:
Grandstanding.
MR. HAGGIE:
Grandstanding is a good
enough point of view. I wasn't going to be as uncharitable as that, but I would
let that stand because it certainly is not something he can claim any insights
into, for any reason, under any circumstances.
So I'm
going to cut my time short because I really didn't expect to speak again, but I
felt that I wanted to get that on the record for the Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
pleasure for me to rise again this morning to talk during Interim Supply. I'm
going to start by saying that I'm not here and I'm not going to make any
apologies for getting up in this House speaking on Interim Supply and speaking
on behalf of the residents of Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
I make no apology for that,
and I don't intend to, because the people of Labrador West and the people of
every district in this province have elected their MHAs to speak on their
behalf. That's what we're here for. If the people on the opposite side don't
want to take advantage of the opportunity to speak on behalf of their residents
and on behalf of their districts, that's their problem, not mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
So I will continue to do
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Chair, the budget will be
coming and then they'll have another excuse why they won't want to speak. So
don't carry on with that. I will speak the only person in this House who can
tell me what to say or not to say is sitting in that chair that you're sitting
in, Mr. Chair. That's the person in this House that can tell me what I'm allowed
to say in debate in this House. It's the person who is sitting in that chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Chair, the last time I
got up and spoke on Interim Supply I spoke on a very important issue for the
residents of Wabush and Labrador City and that was the pensions, the pensions
that Wabush Mines and Cleveland-Cliffs left them hanging with. It's nothing
short of criminal what was done to the people of Labrador West, and especially
the people of Wabush. So I'm going to use my time here again this morning to
reiterate that. That's why I'm here and that's what they want me to do.
They
want me to speak on their behalf and they want this government to act on their
behalf. Mr. Chair, we have done that. We have done that because we have done
with the pension plan what they've asked us to do, and that's to refer section
32 of the Pension Benefits Act to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeals for interpretation because that's
what they want us to do.
If I
want to get up here as well and congratulate Team Gushue on their win this past
week, the House Leader of the Third Party is not going to tell me not to do it,
I can guarantee you that.
I want
to say to the people of Labrador West this morning, I will use every opportunity
in this House to get up and speak on their behalf because, as I said, that's
what they elected me to do. Now, if they want to elect me the second time,
that's their choice, but as long as I have the opportunity to do that in this
House, I will do it I will do it.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) pension issue.
MR. LETTO:
And the pension issue is
something that I've worked on for the past year and a half. The first thing I
had to do, the first day after I was sworn in this House, myself and then the
minister of Municipal Affairs and Service NL had to go to Wabush and sit down
with the pensioners and terminate a pension plan that saw them lose 25 per cent
and 21 per cent of their pension. Now, if I'm not going to come here and fight
and get up and speak on their behalf on that issue, then I'm not doing my job,
and nobody in this House is going to stop me from doing that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
So, Mr. Chair, I will get up
and speak again on Interim Supply, because there are a lot of things I want to
say about my district. There are a lot of good things about the District of
Labrador West. And don't forget that the District of Labrador West is probably
the single district biggest contributor to the provincial economy, to the
provincial coffers of this province, the industry that it develops.
Yes,
we've had a couple of bad years. Yes, our revenues and our contributions have
been down, but it's not our fault. We will get back to become again a
significant contributor to the provincial coffers. And we're seeing that. We're
in an iron ore industry that's at the mercy of the world markets. We're at their
mercy, and there's nothing we can do about that. There's nothing we can do.
But what
we can do as a government is help them through the tough times, help them get
through the tough times and that's what we're done, and that's what we've done
for the pensioners of Wabush. We can't guarantee them that they will get a full
pension back, but what we can do is do everything that's in our power, that's in
our jurisdiction, in our legislation, to represent them. And that's what we'll
do.
So, Mr.
Chair, there's a lot I can say. Diversification, data centres, the climate in
Labrador West you've got to use the assets and the benefits in your district,
use them to your advantage, and that's what we're doing with data centres. It's
cold in Labrador West, they tell me. I don't know if anybody on the other side
knows that, but it's cold in Labrador West. Do you know what? We use that cold
to our benefit, because it's the climate these people want to have to develop
the industry and diversify the economy. We have two data centres: one is up and
running; the second one is about to get up and running; the third one is now in
the making, and there's more to come.
Now,
they're not big employers, but they are big users of electricity. We need to
sell our electricity; I think that's what I heard the last few days. So, again,
we're contributing.
Mr.
Chair, I'm going to sit down but before I do I just want to say again, I came to
this House of Assembly; I got elected by the people. I asked the people of
Labrador West for their support so that I could come here and support them and
represent their best interest, and that's what I'm trying to do.
I don't
always do it perfectly, but that's what I'm trying to do. I'm doing my best. I
will use every opportunity in this House to do that. There's nobody on the other
side who is going to try to shut down democracy and shut down debate and tell me
to sit down when I have the opportunity to represent them. If they don't want to
do it and I noticed that the House Leader of the Third Party is snickering and
laughing at it. Well, if she doesn't want to represent her people, that's her
problem, not mine.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Is it
the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Deputy Chair of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to
them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit
again.
When
shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the hon.
the Government House Leader, I've been advised that as today is Dietitians Day
and the dietitians are set up just outside the House to provide healthy snacks
and nutritional advice, the group is hoping to get a photograph with MHAs. Right
after the session, we can do it in the scrum area or just at the head of the
House.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, I would ask, with the consent of my colleagues, that the
House recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
recess until 2 p.m. today, being Private Members' Day.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House is now in recess until 2 p.m. today.
Recess
The
House met at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
We
welcome to our public galleries members of the Pharmacists' Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador: Dr. Alicia Wall, Vice-President; Glenda Power,
Executive Director; Richard Coombs, Board Member.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well in our public
gallery, we have several members from Dietitians Newfoundland and Labrador who
are the subject of a Ministerial Statement today.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Harbour Grace Port de Gave, Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune, Topsail Paradise, St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre
and Baie Verte Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize an outstanding event which takes place in my district every
winter. I'm referring to the Town of Harbour Grace annual Winter Carnival. This
year, the carnival ran over the weekend of February 24 to 26 and, like so many
other events in Harbour Grace, it had everything. From a day with the reptiles,
which the children loved, to a male beauty pageant that kept everybody laughing
all weekend.
The
community spirit surrounding this winter celebration is truly unique.
Volunteers, the town council and the organizing committee all roll up their
sleeves long before the first winter snow to get ready for this long weekend
celebration.
I want
to congratulate Mayor Terry Barnes and his council, along with the carnival
chairperson, Michelle Pike and her seven member organizing committee for their
tireless work. The 2017 Harbour Grace Winter Carnival was one for the ages, Mr.
Speaker. We can't wait to do it again next year.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Town of Harbour Grace on their
2017 winter carnival. It was a job well done.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to extend congratulations to three very bright and dedicated
recent graduates who received $1,000 Electoral District Scholarships in November
2016 from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: from John
Watkins Academy, Ashley Loveless, from King Academy, Carey Stoodley, and from
Bay d' Espoir Academy, Julie Young.
The
district scholarship recognizes individuals who excel in their academic studies
and receive the highest marks based upon public examination results. We are very
proud of their achievement and wish them the very best of luck as they pursue
their post-secondary education.
Achieving academic excellence is an important part of preparing these fine young
adults for their future, and I know they will never forget where they came from.
We are also truly grateful to their families, their teachers, and all those
people who encouraged them to be the very best that they can be. They have
proven their tremendous work ethic and we know their dedication and great
initiative will serve them well indeed.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Ashley, Carey, and Julie. With what
they have achieved already, there is no doubt that they have very bright futures
ahead of them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Mackenzie Glynn and Katie Follett, both from the Town of
Paradise. In February, these two 16-year-old girls were on the curling team,
Team Atlantic of St. John's Curling Club that won the 2017 Newfoundland and
Labrador Under-18 Women's Curling Championship in Gander. Along with team
members Sarah Chaytor, Camille Burt and the guidance of Coach Dave Trickett,
they will now represent Newfoundland and Labrador as Team NL at the 2017
Canadian Under-18 Boys and Girls Curling Championships being held in Moncton,
New Brunswick in April.
This is
not the first time that these ladies have won. In 2016,
they also won the Under-18 Women's Provincial Curling Championship and
represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the Atlantic U18 Curling Championships
held in Halifax, Nova Scotia in March 2016, and they played in a bronze medal
game.
In addition to their curling accomplishments, these
young athletes volunteer as assistant coaches for the junior curling program for
children ages five to 10 years every Saturday morning at the St. John's Curling
Club while they also maintain 90-plus averages in school.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in
congratulating, not only these two ladies, but the entire team on their
successes and wish them all the very best of luck in the upcoming curling
championship.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. George's Humber.
MR.
REID:
Mr.
Speaker, this past Friday I participated in a Rooting for Health event being
held at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Corner Brook.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Agriculture, working with the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, the School Milk
Foundation, and the Egg Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador celebrated
Nutrition Month in schools across the province by hosting these Rooting for
Health events.
This unique event brings together nutrition tips and
facts, a visit from local farmers and a nutritious breakfast. Farmers on site
provide interesting facts and information on their products, how they are grown
or produced, and help to dispel any associated myths. Breakfast included fresh
local eggs, milk and berries.
This is a tremendous event which ties in really well
with Nutrition Month. The role of farmers in providing healthy, safe food is
very important for both children and adults to understand. It is very fitting
that the farmers of this province be part of this event during Nutrition Month.
I ask all Members of the House to join me in
recognizing the work being done by these various groups in increasing the
knowledge about the healthy food that's produced in this province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the Member for St. Johns Centre, I remind all Members to
kindly put your cellphones on silent, especially if you're going to be stood at
the mic as it does interfere with the sound system.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, we celebrate
Captain Caleb Kean, 90 years old. Captain Kean started his wonderful life in
Pound Cove, Bonavista Bay. At 10 years old he headed to the Labrador to fish
with his father, a schooner captain. For eight years he returned each season,
earning
$35 for three months' work lot of fish and hard but exciting work for a young
boy.
Captain
Kean remembers Commission of Government, when people earned six cents a day and
Confederation, when folks flew brin bags outside their houses to show their
voting intention.
Off to
St. John's in 1951, he skippered the federal fishery research vessel
Investigator. Captain Kean sailed the
Atlantic Ocean for years. In 1956, he rescued a very sick cook off the
L'Ιgarι II, the first open raft to attempt a trans-Atlantic voyage. It stranded
on the Grand Banks in fog and no wind for days. Coming across them, Captain Kean
left his vessel by rowboat and removed the sick crew member of the
L'Ιgarι II, which made the crossing in 88 days a world record.
Fifty-six years later, CBC made a documentary about the encounter, reuniting the
two captains.
Happy
birthday Captain Kean, and long may your big jib draw!
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Health
care is a top concern for everyone in our province and quality primary care is
critical to improving health outcomes. Main Street Medical Clinic in Springdale
is an example of a care model that works through technology, a team-based
approach and a commitment to community engagement health care delivery is
changing.
The
clinic's addictions program, the only one of its kind in the province, ensures
an addict has access to treatment in seven days or less, no matter where they
live. Craig, the addictions coordinator, uses his insights as a former addict to
help others. In April, he will be joined by Emily, an Indigenous woman and
former addict, as his assistant.
Beyond
addictions, wellness for all is promoted through education and support. Home
visits, e-consults, awareness programs, social media outreach and yoga are just
some of the services they offer.
Mr.
Speaker, under the leadership of my friend and colleague, Dr. Todd Young, great
things are happening in my district. I would ask all hon. Members to join me in
recognizing Dr. Young and his staff as they continue what they do best: working
together to help others.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize March as National Nutrition Month.
The
provincial government is pleased to support Nutrition Month, in partnership with
Dietitians of Newfoundland and Labrador and community partners. The theme of
this year's campaign is Take the fight out of food. Spot the problem. Get the
facts. Seek support.
Eating
should be joyful and pleasurable, but it can also be a source of everyday
frustration and confusion. With accurate information and a good support system,
Canadians will be better equipped to make decisions about food, minimizing their
nutrition-related struggles.
Our
government is committed to focusing on policies, practices and creating
environments that are supportive of health and well-being. As noted in
The Way Forward, we will continue to
support initiatives that help increase awareness and engage individuals and
communities to take actions to support healthy living.
Today
also marks Dietitians Day. Dietitians throughout the province promote healthy
eating using evidence-based science of nutrition to help residents make healthy
food choices, separate fact from fiction and promote healthy eating habits.
I invite
all Members of this House to please join me in thanking dietitians throughout
the province for their work, and to recognize their contributions to the health
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, on behalf of my
caucus colleagues, would also like to recognize March as Nutrition Month and
recognize today as Dietitians Day. As the minister indicated, the theme of this
year's campaign is; Take the fight out of food. Spot the problem. Get the facts.
Seek support.
In line
with this theme, I would like to acknowledge and thank the nutrition
professionals who work in our province, as well as the Dietitians of Canada. In
support of Nutrition Month 2017, the Dietitians of Canada have created an
ambassador toolkit, which provides resources that families can use in their
workplaces and in community organizations to encourage each other to live
healthier by eating healthier. And this toolkit is also available on their
website.
Mr.
Speaker, though, we call on government to do more, we call on government to make
dietitians services available through the province's 811 HealthLine and in the
K-12 curriculum of schools. I would encourage all
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to view the online resources and strive to live a healthier life.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister and I thank our wonderful dietitians of the province for their
great work. My office is flooded with calls from seniors who can't afford
nutritious food because of the high cost of housing and the high cost of food
itself, or they can't eat properly because they can't afford dentures because
the Adult Dental Program was cancelled.
This
statement is vacuous and disingenuous. I think the minister needs to spot the
problem, get the facts and give support.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
March is
Pharmacist Awareness Month in Canada.
There
are approximately 700 registered pharmacists in our province and they are
valuable contributors to the health care system. I am pleased to take this
opportunity to recognize their important work.
Mr.
Speaker, the expertise of pharmacists goes well beyond simply dispensing
medications. As front line care providers, pharmacists play a major role in
helping people manage their most valuable possession their health.
Pharmacists are trusted voices and leaders in their community. Our government is
committed to enabling pharmacists to work to their full scope of practice, and
we're on the road to achieving this.
They are
important members of primary health care teams, working on population health
needs to better manage chronic conditions. They're valued partners in the design
of the prescription monitoring program and pharmacy network both vital tools
in the fight against opioid abuse.
By
continuing to work with pharmacists, I know together we can positively improve
the health care system in our province, leading to better health outcomes and a
healthier population.
I ask
all Members in this hon. House to join me today in marking March as Pharmacists
Awareness Month.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement this afternoon. And we join
with government in recognizing and thanking our approximately 700 registered
pharmacists.
Pharmacists do play a valuable role in the delivery of primary health care
services. We firmly believe they can continue to play an even greater role.
That's why we worked closely with pharmacists to expand their scope of practice.
As a result of our work with the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador, pharmacists are now permitted to administer medications by injection
and inhalation, including the all-important flu vaccine. Pharmacists can also
now prescribe for minor ailments.
Pharmacists are able to further utilize their skills and deliver important
health services because their scope of practice is expanding. I encourage
government to continue to work with pharmacists on ways we can continue to
improve the primary health care system.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I also join with him
and with my colleague in the Official Opposition in thanking and congratulating
the pharmacists for the contribution that they made to the people of this
province. They help people with chronic conditions, addiction recovery, and
adjustment to medication, to name a few things. Sometimes they are the only
health support in small communities.
I'm sure
they would agree that one of the most crucial things needed to ensure full
accessibility and affordability for people requiring medication is a national
pharma care program, which I hope the minister will keep looking for.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that Premier Ball and I will be attending
Seafood Expo North America 2017 taking place in Boston from March 19 to 21.
We will
be accompanying our world-class seafood marketing team and the Newfoundland and
Labrador delegation to join the 1,200 companies, and over 21,000 buyers,
suppliers, media and other seafood professionals at North America's largest
seafood event.
Mr.
Speaker, this event provides a great opportunity to promote our quality seafood
products to fishing industry representatives and other seafood professionals
from around the world.
More
than 100 companies will be represented at this year's show presenting many new
potential market opportunities for our province's processing sector. This
government will continue to work closely with our seafood producers to provide
support to meet the challenges of establishing relationships with current, new
and emerging markets for our seafood products.
Mr.
Speaker, ahead of Seafood Expo, I am pleased to release the 2016 Seafood
Industry Year in Review which provides details on our industry. Last year, the
production value of our seafood industry reached yet another record high,
totalling over $1.4 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Nearly 20 per cent of that
came from our evolving aquaculture sector, which continues to demonstrate
significant growth.
The
Seafood Industry Year in Review is now available on our department's website.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister in advance for his statement. The seafood industry is a
tremendous value to our province today and it always has been. I truly believe
that we should take every opportunity to promote our fishery and our seafood
sector. This is even more important, given the situation we find ourselves in
today.
The
Seafood Expo is a great place to showcase our quality seafood products that
Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer. I'm glad to see that government is
finally making an effort to promote and increase the markets in the industry.
Hopefully this trip to Boston will motivate the minister and the Premier to do
more.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The industry the
minister oversees has been shortchanged by $180 million in promised funding by
his own leader. He has settled for $100 million with no details on how it will
be spent.
The
minister is facing a crisis as shrimp and crab quotas are forecast to decline
more quickly than groundfish quotas rebound. Hundreds in the industry face
economic devastation. I look forward to hearing what his plan is for using the
$100 million to help those people.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier has said that he was proud to announce a significantly
reduced fisheries fund, reduced from what was promised by the Liberals.
So I ask
the Premier: If $100 million is truly guaranteed for the Newfoundland and
Labrador fishery, why didn't Minister Foote bring full details and a cheque with
her so this money could flow right away?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
guess the people of the province were wondering back a few years ago why we
didn't even see a boarding pass from a federal minister to show up at the
announcement that was made just a few years ago. Minister Foote came to the
announcement, made the commitment on behalf of the federal government, Mr.
Speaker, of $100 million for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador and also
made the commitment on behalf of the federal government to be there with more,
not up to $280 million. The federal government has committed to doing what is
required for the transition of the fishery, for the growth of the fishery in our
province. That's what she came delivering, Mr. Speaker.
It's
only fair that we not exclude the industry from this discussion. That's what
we're committed to do, Mr. Speaker. Partnerships are the pillar of this
administration, and it will continue to be that way because that's where the
success of the fishery will be in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, they may claim
that partnership is a pillar, but trust is certainly not one, I can assure you
of that. The Premier is asking us to trust him. Last May, the Premier had a rare
moment when he was very clear and he said the Liberal government would not give
up minimum processing requirements.
So I ask
the Premier: In your rush to sell out the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, at
what point in the last 10 months did you decide to drop minimum processing
requirements?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said yesterday, there were no conditions put on the $100 million that was
required. It's interesting to note, though, that it's the Leader of the
Opposition, the former PC premier of this province, that said MPR as a matter
of fact, he said you couldn't put a value on them because he didn't know what
the impact would be, Mr. Speaker.
So by
his own admission, if we had to use his math, it would be probably little or
nothing. So, Mr. Speaker, there were no conditions put on the $100 million. It's
meant to be a transition. More will come; I'll continue to say.
My
concern, when I talk to fish processors, when I talk to harvesters and plant
workers, I'm thinking of the people on the Northern Peninsula, the Bonavista
Peninsula, up on the Baie Verte Peninsula, that are concerned about the future
of the fishery in our province.
The
Members opposite, the PC Party, what they're concerned about is political gain,
Mr. Speaker. They delivered nothing for the fishery. We are going to deliver the
future for the fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
people of the province have great reason to be concerned because they can't
believe anything that the government opposite says or tries to sell to them, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
And yesterday, the Premier
did say a lot. He said a lot more outside of the House when he continued to make
conflicting statements. He suggested yesterday that the province might be on the
hook for $50 million. Now, it sounds like $50 million of the $100 million.
I'm not
sure, Premier, tell us, is that accurate? Or do you have a different story
today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we
were talking about yesterday in the media was about what would be required for
the province in terms of cost sharing, with a sharing arrangement. No
conditions, Mr. Speaker if the Members opposite would actually just do one
simple thing, go and look at the press releases that have been out there
already. Cost sharing we will be there as active participants in this fund,
because we are concerned about people attached to the fishery in this province.
The province will be there in partnership with the federal government; more will
come, Mr. Speaker, if required. That has been very, very clear.
Stakeholders, private industry, harvesters, the provincial government, along
with our federal government, will all be involved in making sure the future is
bright for the fishery in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the
people should read the press releases. Read the Ottawa press release. Because
the Ottawa press release doesn't even refer to the Newfoundland and Labrador
fishery fund. That's the fact. And I'll tell you another fact, Mr. Speaker; the
fact is that Members opposite are denying that people in the province don't
trust them anymore. Simply don't trust them.
The
Premier also said yesterday the province could be contributing upwards of 30 per
cent. Now 30 per cent is $30 million; he's also talked about $50 million.
So
Premier, is that correct, the province could have to contribute up to 30 per
cent of that fund?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As I said yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the application process for this fund, we want to get
this money out the door. We realize that this fishery is facing a very critical
situation. I'm concerned about the families that are attached to this fishery in
our province.
The
province will be there, Mr. Speaker. The cost-sharing arrangement will depend on
where it would need to be. In some cases, if the Members opposite would just
look at the information, the federal minister made it quite clear. If it means
the federal government will need to be more than the 30-70, well they're willing
to do that, Mr. Speaker. That's been there.
But what
we're going to do is what we've always done. When he talks about the people of
this province and being concerned about their future, they are concerned simply
because there was no future at all attached to the previous administration. They
burdened this province with debt, they set the future up for doubling of
electricity rates, Mr. Speaker, and we are left to manage our way through this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And the
Premier continues with his fiction, storytelling and spin, there's no doubt
about that. His conflicting statements yesterday are a good example of that.
Because yesterday the Premier said that the province would be able to get a
portion of a $30 million marketing fund.
So I ask
the Premier: Does the $30 million marketing program come from the Atlantic
Fisheries Fund, or will that come out of the Newfoundland fund?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
talk about fiction, if you listened to the Leader of the PC Party yesterday
answering questions in this House, leaving $300 million off the table, that's
what he was referring to. He didn't explain to the people of this province that
$120 million of the fund, that phantom fund that he talked, $120 million of that
was from the province. Up to $280 million from the federal government, which
they could not deliver they could not deliver to the people of this province.
Because what was happening, doors were being slammed in their back; the only
phone that was answered was with an answering machine, Mr. Speaker. No one was
returning calls.
Mr.
Speaker, we are working in collaboration with our federal colleagues, and we're
going to work with the industry, and the province will be there to support the
fishing industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another
great example of when the Premier can't answer a question, he likes to go back
and blame it on somebody else.
So I'll
ask him again: The $30 million marketing fund, does that come out of the
Atlantic Fisheries Fund or out of the Newfoundland and Labrador fund?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the fund is $325 million. The $30 million comes as a marketing, not from
AN HON. MEMBER:
You can't answer it.
PREMIER BALL:
I can answer it, I say, Mr.
Speaker; it's very clear. The $30 million is a separate fund altogether. The
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will get a minimum of $100 million $100
million to the province to invest in the future.
And why
would we settle for $280 million? Why would ever put an arbitrary number in
place? We will be there with our federal colleagues. It was Minister Foote who
said on behalf of the federal government that they will deliver more than $280
million, if required, for the future of this province.
The
industry likes it, Mr. Speaker, fish processors like it and harvesters like it.
The previous administration delivered nothing to them, provided no hope to the
future for the fishery, Mr. Speaker. This is just a start of what will be a
bright future for the fishery.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we heard it all
now. Why would the fishery accept a $280 million contribution from the federal
government for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador? Unbelievable. When what
he's talking about there, realistically, is likely going to be a $30 million or
a $50 million contribution from the federal government. That's what he's saying;
fiction, storytelling and spin, and he wonders why people can't trust him.
The
Premier tried to sell the province that $100 million is more than $280 million.
He just did it now. He said a $100 million federal fund; he said 30 per cent
paid by the province. He's also said $50 million could be paid by the province.
The Premier said no strings attached, and then he said the details haven't been
worked out yet. The process could be years. He said that money could flow
sometime this year. He said the process may start immediately or it could be
years. Let's see if we can get one single fact straight from this Premier.
I ask
the Premier: Can you confirm that the federal fund will only be in the $30
million to $50 million range? When it's all said and done, is that what Ottawa
is offering Newfoundland and Labrador, when your boss, the prime minister,
committed $280 million to the Newfoundland fishery?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
interesting when you talk about political spin and factual information. Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear, $325 million in a fund. So let's establish that, $325
million that's a 3-2-5, put an M behind it that's the Atlantic Fisheries
Fund; $30 million of $325 million is a marketing fund, not coming out of the
$100 million for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. More will come, Mr.
Speaker, required to transition this fishery.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know how much clearer I can put that. The only person that is
actually spinning this and misleading the people of this province, Mr. Speaker,
are the Members opposite. They are ashamed of themselves, and they should be
ashamed of themselves, for going to an announcement at a party of one, Mr.
Speaker, at a party of one, paid for the meal for themselves, no one else showed
up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the Member
for Cape St. Francis, I remind all hon. Members again, the only person I wish to
hear from is the person identified to speak. If you wish to ask a question or
answer a question you're welcome to stand, other than that, only the Member
standing to speak.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister said yesterday they will be consulting with harvesters and processors
on how the Atlantic Fisheries Fund will be spent.
I ask
the minister: Will you be holding public stakeholder consultations or will it be
invitation only, like your news conference?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that this
government has been since we were elected about 15 months ago, and that's open.
The hon. Member across the way knows full well that anytime he's contacted me to
meet with fish harvesters from his district or any other district around this
province, Mr. Speaker, we've been open to those meetings. So it's disingenuous
for the Member to get up here today and say that we don't listen to fish
harvesters.
Mr.
Speaker, I talk to fish harvesters all the time. We were at an announcement on
Friday where the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association was there, the
Association of Seafood Producers, individual harvesters, the Marine Institute
School of Fisheries, CCFI. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is this
industry is there to support this fund because they need it more than ever.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'll ask
the minister: So what time frame do you have set out for these consultations,
and what is the process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, the input from
the industry is something that we seek all the time. I'm willing to sit down
with anybody any day of the week to talk about how we go forward with this fund,
because the important thing to remember with this fund, Mr. Speaker, it's about
our harvesters and our processors.
We're
facing a situation in this province today. The number one email that I've
received in the last three days with regard to the fishery is about the
challenges that are being faced in the crab industry. I received a picture this
morning of a seal with a stomach of 160 female crabs in it. There's our concern,
Mr. Speaker. There are the concerns I'm bringing to the federal Minister of
Fisheries.
When I
meet with the federal Minister of Fisheries this weekend, I'm sure to bring
those concerns of our harvesters about declining crab stocks to his attention.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I don't know when the
consultations are going to start, but I hope they do start.
Yesterday, the minister stood in the House and riddled off funding for things
unrelated to the fishery fund.
Can the
minister give us specific examples of projects that will be considered under
this fund?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. The things we're going to look for as we get
ready to transition this fishery are things along the lines like we did this
year with our Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, Mr. Speaker. We funded
hook and line systems. We funded some automatic filleting equipment for some
plants in our province. We funded electronic jiggers. We funded slush and slurry
systems. They are the things that we are going to need to put in our fishery.
The
fishery of the future will bring opportunities for us but we will need to make
sure that our seafood products, our cod is the best in the world.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker,
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Both the
Premier and Minister Foote had said that some of this money will be going toward
aquaculture projects.
I ask
the minister: What percentage of the $100 million will be allotted for
aquaculture projects?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
I'm glad the hon. Member is
now recognizing the fact that it is $100 million from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, what we will do
is, as a government, we're going to go out and seek the input from people like
the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association. We just seen in the statement
I read just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, where aquaculture this year is now
20 per cent of our seafood value in this province and growing.
We've
had great news in aquaculture over the past number of weeks. We have Marine
Harvest, the world's largest producer of Atlantic salmon, looking at the South
Coast of this province. They were able to obtain the assets of Gray's
aquaculture. I'm pleased to say that Marine Harvest was back in the province
again quite recently and we'll be meeting with Marine Harvest this weekend as
well to discuss their future plans in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's obvious the minister
doesn't know what portion is going to be spent that way.
Will
funds be allocated according to regions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, the last time I
looked at Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the fishery, we're one big
region. The reality is the fishery affects every single one of us in this
province no matter where we live, whether we're on the South Coast of Labrador,
or we're in Trinity Bay, or we're on the Southern Shore, or we're on the
Northern Peninsula, it doesn't matter. We could be in the Bay of Islands, Mr.
Speaker, the fishery
AN HON. MEMBER:
And Wabush.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, and Wabush too, because
the fishery is the fabric of this province, Mr. Speaker, and we will certainly
listen to the harvesters and processors in this province when we decide not we
decide, but when they give us input on how the fund is going to be spent and
invested in the future of our fishery.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, no answer to that
question either.
I'll ask
this one: Over what period of time are you planning on spending this $100
million?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Again, I thank the hon.
Member for realizing that this first portion is $100 million from Ottawa, Mr.
Speaker. So I thank him again for going on record.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is this Member stands up over here and he talks about the
fisheries fund. Mr. Speaker, he was on this side of the House from October 2013
when they first announced the phantom fisheries fund no, Mr. Speaker, they
announced it in October '13. That Member never once referenced the fisheries
fund while he was on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So obviously you don't know
the answer to that question either. Okay.
I'll ask
another one: Can the minister tell us who will be eligible to apply?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Fish harvesters and
processors in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will be the people that
are eligible to apply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Does that include agriculture
like I asked you before?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Aqua.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Aquaculture?
How
would someone make an application for this funding today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thought
the hon. Member opposite was at the news conference on Friday but obviously he
wasn't. What we're going to do
MR. K. PARSONS:
I was there.
MR. CROCKER:
Well, he wasn't listening
obviously, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is we are going to go out and seek the input of the people
that matter. We're going to go out and talk to harvesters; we're going to talk
to processors. We want to see how they need this fund, how they want to roll out
this fund.
All I
can assure the hon. Members is, unlike their phantom fund, we will deliver for
the harvesters and processors of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Trust us again.
Minister, earlier today the Premier stated that there would be applications;
people can put in applications.
So I'm
asking you today: Will you table those applications that people can put in to
the Department of Fisheries?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, does the Member
opposite think that the right thing for government to do is to go out and set
parameters before we've had an opportunity to talk to the harvesters and
processors? The hon. Member represents a lot of people, a lot of harvesters in
his district, and he speaks highly of them. Wouldn't the hon. Member think the
best thing for us to do as a government is listen to what the harvesters have to
say?
We don't
want to impose a position on top of the harvesters, Mr. Speaker. The first thing
the Members opposite did when they thought they had a fisheries fund was went
out and did three consulting reports on how they might do that. We're going to
go out and take the input of the harvesters in the province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I speak to
harvesters and plant workers every day every day in my district I speaker to
them.
The
Premier said there will different applications and the funding will be different
ratios. Can the minister tell us what the cost-shared ratios will be between the
agriculture projects and investment projects?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a period here when we need to receive input from the industry
and see what the industry wants in such a program. If you look at our Seafood
Innovation and Transition Program that we announced in
Budget 2016, actually
doubling the amount that the former administration had in their FTNOP program,
we got that money out the door this past year to harvesters and processors and
we leveraged about $3.7 million.
The
ratios in that program, Mr. Speaker, were depending on vessel size; for example,
in the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, a vessel under 40 foot
qualifies for 80-20 programming, whereas processers are on a 50-50 basis up to
$100 million.
Mr.
Speaker, it's important that we go out and consult with our harvesters and our
processors, find out what it is they need, find out how they feel we should
deliver. The one thing I can assure the hon. Member opposite, unlike your
phantom fund, we will deliver.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I guess they're looking for
our trust again.
Will
there be a cap on any project spending?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, the Member gets
up and asks one question for consultation then he's asking for applications. We
are going to seek the input of our fish harvesters. When you look at the
challenges we face in the fishery today and I can't say this enough because,
like the Member opposite, I talk to a lot of fish harvesters, quite regularly,
and the message that we all in this House and all in this province need to bring
to the federal government is that we need to make sure that the science is there
to support the changes we're seeing in the shellfish industry, Mr. Speaker.
I talk
to a lot of harvesters and harvesters are telling me that we better get this
science right because the reality is some of these quota cuts aren't being
totally reflected in what we're seeing from the catch rates in some of these
areas, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm hearing from harvesters.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, a question for
you; try to answer this one for us too: Who will review the applications? Will
Ottawa be reviewing the applications, or will the province?
Because
you haven't answered anything yet.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The part
that the hon. Member is not recognizing in his one question it's about
consultation, then it's about applications and who is reviewing the
applications. We're going to work on a program with Ottawa that's going to be
tailored for our industry. That's the reality.
Over the
last number of days, my department has been in constant communication with DFO
in Ottawa. I spoke to the minister's office last night; I spoke to the
minister's office again this morning.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is here, we are going to deliver a program that best serves
the harvesters and producers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister: The next time you speak to the federal minister, will you get the
details?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Well, thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the last time I saw the party opposite in Ottawa they were stood on
a cold street corner having a news conference because the doors were slamming in
their back.
I can
pick up the phone and speak to Minister LeBlanc's office or Minister LeBlanc
practically anytime I need to, Mr. Speaker, because the minister is there to
answer the call. They didn't have that. They were having news conferences on the
corner of Elgin Street.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister again: Who will make the final decision on cost-shared ratios? Give us
an answer.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, one of the great
things about having an ability to communicate with our federal partners is we
can have a say, we can have our say in how these things are delivered for the
harvesters and producers of the province. It's absolutely vital that we seek
their input. It's absolutely vital that it's a flexible program and a program
that suits the needs.
Mr.
Speaker, he asked earlier about regions. There are things that may be suitable
for Southern Labrador that are not suitable for 3Ps and other areas around the
province. It's not necessarily one size fits all. Our fishery changes from
region to region to region. And if you look at it, we are in a tremendously
awful situation right now in 3Ps. What we need to do is make sure that the
program best fits the needs of the people that do our harvesting and processing
in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, so it is region
to region is what you're saying. You said there was only one region a minute
ago.
Who will
make the final decision on which projects are approved? Can you answer that one?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I've been in the
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources now for about 16 months and I can
tell you we have a tremendous staff in that department that put in many long
hours and do some great work.
That
department right now I would trust any application with the Department of
Fisheries and Land Resources in this province. They're a great, great group of
individuals. They've done hard work on this file for us. They'll continue to do
so. Right now, they're reaching to our federal counterparts to get this program
in place because there is an urgency in the fishery, Mr. Speaker.
They
chirp away over there and I guess it's because they couldn't deliver. They did
not deliver, Mr. Speaker. I read a piece of correspondence this morning where
the federal government wouldn't even put their logo on their so-called fisheries
fund.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Member for St. John's Centre, I will remind the Member for Cape
St. Francis that I've asked for co-operation in the House.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, last week the
federal government announced to the people of Canada it will be tabling its
budget on March 22, giving two weeks' notice. Nova Scotia and other provinces
routinely give two weeks' notice as well.
I ask
the Premier: Will he extend the same courtesy to the people of this province and
announce when his government intends to table its budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and speak to such an important topic. I will await the
return of our Finance Minister who is representing this province right now
outside this House of Assembly and certainly will be providing as much notice as
possible, but I'm going to leave that announcement to the Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
that as a commitment.
Mr.
Speaker, apparently government has no more new legislation prepared for a debate
in this House, yet there are crucial issues facing the people of the province.
For instance, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has been asking for
over two years for legislation for mandatory reporting of critical incidents and
deaths.
I ask
the minister: Where is that legislation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the Department
of Children, Seniors and Social Development continues to work towards the
mandate of December 2015 regarding the reporting of critical incidents and
deaths.
We have
met with the new Child and Youth Advocate, Mr. Speaker. We are seeking her
feedback and we are developing a shared plan. So I can assure the Member
opposite that we are continuing to work on that piece of legislation. It is a
complicated and complex piece of legislation, and we have to ensure that we
develop and deliver the right legislation to this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Disability advocates have been asking for a new
Buildings Accessibility Act for years.
The current one has numerous gaps and is outdated. The Buildings Accessibility
Advisory Board has made several recommendations to the Minister of Service NL.
I ask
the minister: Where is the new act, as well as the long-overdue amended
Residential Tenancies Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much for the
question.
I guess
on the first point, in terms of work on the disabilities, I am new to the
portfolio, meeting with staff and I look forward to reporting back to this House
soon on progress and how we'll respond.
In terms
of the Tenancies Act and between the review of that act that was started back in
2012, I understand that we did a jurisdictional scan at that time. We need to
update that, and we promised to do a review. That's ongoing; I'll be reporting
soon.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
December the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognized in this House the
importance of and the need for legislation to protect the trails in this
province. Our trails are a vital part of the tourism infrastructure and attract
millions of dollars in tourism spending every year.
I ask
the minister: Where is our trails protection act, such as the one they have in
Nova Scotia?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question, because it is very important to our tourism
industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have met with several
groups concerning that and what we can do. I have met with the groups and
explaining how we can get Crown lands to put the trails and make public
right-of-ways. We're dealing with some people who have private land that we use.
So this
is an ongoing, complicated issue, which we all agree we need changes, we need
improvements and we are working on those improvements. When there are
improvements made, we will report back to the House of Assembly but, be rest
assured, we are working on that to help with the trails across Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre, for a very quick question.
MS. ROGERS:
I ask the Minister of Justice
and Public Safety: When will we have legislation setting up a full-fledged
civilian police oversight commission?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
thank the Member opposite for that question because it's an important topic, one
I've talked about significantly over the last little while and certainly when I
was in Opposition. It's a piece of legislation that the people in this province
want, and certainly our police forces want. It's something I've committed to
having in 2017, but there are a number of things that we need to consider prior
to bringing such important legislation into this House.
But
again, it's a commitment that I made, one that we need here and I'll certainly
stand by that and we'll be debating that in 2017 in this House.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting An
Independent Court Of Appeal In The Province, Bill 72.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS government plans to remove the provincial
point-of-sale tax rebate on books, which will raise the tax on books from 5 per
cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS an increase in the tax on books will reduce
book sales to the detriment of local bookstores, publishers and authors, and the
amount collected by government must be weighed against the loss in economic
activity caused by higher book prices; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the
lowest literacy rates in Canada and the other provinces do not tax books because
they recognize the need to encourage reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS the province has many nationally and
internationally known storytellers, but we will be the only people in Canada who
will have to pay our provincial government a tax to read the books of our own
writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government not to impose a
provincial sales tax on books.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever
pray.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, now that we seem to have had a commitment from government that
they, in fact, will give us advance notice when their budget will be tabled, one
would hope that in their wisdom, in their budget, they may in fact remove this
idiotic, imposed book tax that is practised almost nowhere in the entire world
not anywhere in Canada but in the entire world.
So, Mr.
Speaker, one would hope we're going to take that as a commitment from
government today that they are going to give us advance notice when the budget
is coming down because they haven't done that before, and it makes sense to do
so, so that people are prepared in order to be able to respond to the budget.
They
have the opportunity. This is something that they can do. And tonight, the three
finalists for the Winterset Award will be reading from their works: Mr. Paul
Rowe, Mr. Robert Chafe and Mr. Michael Crummey. All three celebrated
award-winning authors here in our province, and all three, along with other
authors, poets, writers, playwrights, actors in this province, librarians,
people who read books, booksellers, publishers, they've all together vehemently
opposed this book tax as seen as so short sighted in a province that has the
highest illiteracy rate.
It makes
no sense, Mr. Speaker. It is my hope that this government will see through the
folly of this decision and reverse the book tax.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House
of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS emergency
responders are at a greater risk of post-traumatic stress disorder;
WHEREUPON the
undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly
to urge government to enact legislation containing a presumptive clause with
respect to PTSD for people employed in various front-line emergency response
professions including firefighters, emergency medical services professionals and
police officers not already covered under federal legislation;
And as in duty
bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to rise on this again today. This is a
petition obviously regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, and we're going to
be bringing in others in the House, but this particular one talks about first
responders and presumptive legislation.
I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, I spent 25 years as a first responder. I've learned more about
post-traumatic stress disorder in the last year than I've known through my full
25 years as a first responder. I know that industry, medical professionals are
understanding more today than we ever did before about occupational stress
injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, and also the fact that under
Workers' Compensation legislation, a first responder has to be able to identify
a single incident that caused the PTSD.
That's not what is
known today. What's known today is that post-traumatic stress disorder is quite
often the result of accumulation over a long period of time of a stress event,
stress event, stress event, stress event, and a single event cannot be
identified.
People are not
being provided with the services and support they deserve because of that very
fact, and I ask and call upon, and these petitioners call upon, the government
to change the legislation to provide adequate and good response to first
responders and to other employees in the province who are subjected to
difficult circumstances that could cause post-traumatic stress disorder.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: It
being Private Members' Day, I call upon the Member for Labrador West to present
your motion.
MR. LETTO: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for St. George's Humber:
WHEREAS Crown lands make up 89 per cent of the land mass of
the province and this land is a significant economic and social resource for
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS government has recently announced increased access
to Crown lands available for agricultural production; and
WHEREAS the announcement to increase access to Crown lands
delivers on a commitment in The Way
Forward to improve food self-sufficiency and supports government's goal to
foster economic growth throughout the province; and
WHEREAS increasing access to Crown lands benefits
residents, municipalities and businesses throughout our province;
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House recognizes the
importance of increasing access to Crown lands in increasing agricultural
production and commends the provincial government for doubling the amount of
land available to farmers and agricultural producers.
Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to speak today in support of this
private member's resolution. The legislation we put forward on Crown lands was a
great day for our government, and I'm glad to have a chance to discuss it here
today.
Let me begin by saying that one thing our government has
not shied away from is action. Right from our first days in office, we got right
to work undoing the damage the PC government did to this province. There is no
other way to describe it. They left the province in a mess.
The province is being dragged down by the reckless Muskrat
Falls decision, and our debt is expanding. The situation we faced when taking
office was critical. It was unprecedented. We knew the numbers would be bad, but
nothing could have prepared us for how bad it really was.
That's the situation we inherited, Mr. Speaker, because the
only action they took was to haul the chequebook out of their pockets and sign
away even more of the people's money. They left the cash register empty, Mr.
Speaker. They even took the float.
So what we're seeing today, Mr. Speaker, by this PMR is
another indication of what we're prepared to do to bring the province back to
economic growth and prosperity. Back in November 2016, we announced
The Way Forward. It is a comprehensive
document that lays out the premier's vision for sustainability and growth in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of that way forward was our commitment to Crown
land and making it more accessible to municipalities.
Certainly, the announcement that we made regarding allowing
and doubling the amount of Crown land available for access to farmers and
agricultural reasons is a step forward. It's a road map we're using to lead this
province forward in a future of prosperity and opportunity. It's what we're
using to ensure a high standard for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian,
present and future.
The Way Forward
incorporates suggestions from people all over the province. We've heard quite
loudly from the people in the province during the consultation process that
agriculture provides an opportunity for us as a government to diversify the
economy. It's a new industry that has really not reached its full potential in
our province, and we certainly see the potential that's there.
I know
that my colleague, the Member from St. George's Humber, will speak later. His
district, for example, is one of the most agricultural-friendly districts in the
province, and there are many more besides that; and, yes, there are even some in
Labrador. When you look at what's been allocated for agricultural use by our
government, it's a very positive step forward because it's an industry, as I
said, that needs to be developed and for many reasons, not only for economic
growth but for food self-sufficiency.
One
theme made in The Way Forward is doing
things smarter and more efficiently, getting better value for the taxpayers'
dollars. Again, this is what we're doing. We're being smart. We're looking at
the industries that I wouldn't go as far as to say non-traditional industries
but, again, there are industries that have been underdeveloped in this province.
So what
we've seen today is a great step forward, as I've said. I want to read from
The Way Forward document. This PMR
today fits into that and the issue around Crown lands. Now, before I go any
further, certainly, I spent 20 years in municipal politics and I've spent many
years on the provincial board. Crown lands was a topic that came up every single
time we had an opportunity to get together, whether it was at a regional
meeting, whether it was at a convention, whether it was at symposium.
Crown
lands, and the inability of our municipalities to access Crown lands was a topic
of discussion at every one of those sessions. Not only for agricultural use but
certainly Crown lands that lie within municipal boundaries and municipalities be
able to have access to those Crown lands and to develop them in the best
interests of the community and of the province.
Crown
lands, as quoted in The Way Forward
document, Crown Lands make up 88 per cent of the land mass of Newfoundland and
Labrador and are a significant social and economic resource for the province.
Municipalities have indicated that they require Crown Lands for commercial or
residential development, but the payment of market value for these lands prior
to development is a financial burden. In addition, the application for Crown
Lands is an onerous process that can take anywhere from six months to three
years to finalize.
We've
certainly seen that over the years. That access to Crown lands, and not many
municipalities but again for agricultural use, it's taking forever and a day to
be able to bring to fruition. So there is and history has shown there are as
many as 100,000 inquiries annually to government regarding Crown lands,
including many requesting status updates and application processing times.
In
November 2016, we launched the new municipal leasing program that will allow
municipalities to access Crown lands within their municipal planning boundaries
for economic development purposes; through long-term leases with flexible
payment options, including payment deferral until the development is generating
revenue. We want to work with the people of this province, we want to work with
the municipalities, we want to work with the farmers of this province to develop
the Crown lands, because it is a resource that we need to develop for the future
of this province.
When you
look at what's happening today with this PMR and the benefits it would reap for
agricultural production in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said earlier, farmers
and agricultural producers will now have almost double the amount of land
available to them, with additional Crown land now available for agricultural
production.
The
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources has identified 62 areas of interest
totalling approximately 64,000 hectares to increase agricultural development.
Nineteen areas are currently available, and we are progressing toward making the
remaining 43 areas available in the very near future.
Now, I
did refer to the Member for St. George's Humber and the agricultural
opportunities and potential that is in his district, but it's certainly not only
there in the province. We have agricultural land throughout this province that
can be developed. Right here in the metro area, there's great agricultural land
on the outskirts of the metro.
We can
go out to the Bonavista Peninsula where there is all kinds Wooddale and around
the Humber Valley and the Humber River area; Deer Lake, Baie Verte, Port au
Port, down on the Burin Peninsula. You can go anywhere.
Mr.
Speaker, there is agricultural land in Labrador as well. In the Happy
Valley-Goose Bay area, for instance and the Member for Lake Melville will know
this very well farming has been going on there for years for years and
it's been very successful. But we need to build on that; and that's what we're
trying to do by allowing these people and the industry better access to land
that's available for development and to grow our own vegetables.
Now,
part of this, and we saw it here today of course, it very fitting that today we
would have the dietitians here and talking about healthy food and what we need
to do to be healthy Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and this is another great
step towards that. If you look at the definition of food security, what does
food security mean for our province? When you look at an island, such as the
Island of Newfoundland, it becomes a very important item.
Right
now, we don't have a lot of food security. We are at the mercy of weather; we're
at the mercy of hurricanes; we're at the mercy of the wind; we're at the mercy
of Marine Atlantic, dare I say. There are many things that we have very little
control over that will affect our food security. Food security is defined, by
the way, and it's a very interesting definition I think, as all people, at all
times, having physical and economic access to adequate amounts of nutritious,
safe and culturally appropriate food to maintain a healthy and active life.
There
are a lot of words in there, and it can be taken in many ways. What it basically
boils down to is that we have to be in a position where we wean ourselves off
those mercies that we're at today. We have to have food available within our
province that will allow us more than three or four days of fresh vegetables,
fresh fruit or whatever product that we bring into our province. Because that's
where we are today. I guess what we're trying to say is that we don't need to be
there. We have the resources at our fingertips; they just have not been
developed.
Crown
lands, I go back to it again because, as I said, I spent 20 years in municipal
politics. Crown lands were an issue that municipalities were dealing with right
from forever and having the access to develop them. It was an issue that we
dealt with on every day.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I think today what we're doing here is setting the groundwork, pardon
the pun, for development of those lands so that we can have food security, so we
can have fresh fruit and vegetables. It is only today that the Member for St.
John's Centre mentioned about the high cost of healthy food. It is very
expensive to eat healthy, very expensive. I know; just look at me, I can't
afford to eat healthy.
We need
to find ways so that we can afford to be able to eat healthy. We have to make
the bold move. We have to start and develop the resources in our best interests,
not in the best interest of somebody else but in our best interest. We have to
look after our people first.
I think
when you look at the organization which was Food First NL, it's very
appropriate, which was formerly the food security network of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Food First NL, just think about that. How are we going to meet that
definition and how are we going to meet that mandate of this association if we
don't have the resources developed to be able to do that?
We see
it in the fishery as well, not only in the agriculture industry but the fishery
as well. Where are the young people today? Where are they? There are very few of
them developing the agriculture industry because there are so many barriers
there and we have to break down those barriers so that the young entrepreneurs
of this province and the young people of this province can find a reasonable
living and a prosperous career in this industry because it's an industry that we
need. It's industry that this province needs. It's an industry that we've been
lacking for a long, long time.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when I talk about Food First NL, they just released a discussion paper
called Everybody Eats, in November of 2015, to highlight the issue of food
security in Newfoundland and Labrador. The discussion paper was intended as the
first step in the creation of a provincial roadmap for the future of food
security in Newfoundland and Labrador.
What
we're doing here today, Madam Speaker, is setting the groundwork for us, as a
government, to help this organization met their mandate. The mandate that is
very important for the well-being and the lifestyle of all the residents of our
great province.
I'm sure
that the Member for St. George's Humber will go into more detail in his
district and that's just one of the many districts around this province. But,
certainly, I look forward to the comments from the Opposition, as well, and I
take my seat.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I always
enjoy getting up and speak in the House, obviously. It's nice to get up, I
guess, here and speak on the private Member's motion as opposed to what we've
been seeing the last couple of days. At least it's something.
It's a
private Member's motion that we've all agreed to. It was announced a few weeks
back and we all supported it. I've been on record as saying on behalf of our
Official Opposition and I know the Third Party has also supported it.
So I
guess we're going back to the well again to government is going back to the
well to get us all to support it again. I'll reiterate that we do support this
motion, this increased agricultural land in the province, Crown lands for
agricultural purposes. It's a good move. It's something that I know myself and
the minister responsible for Lands spoke about this on several occasions.
My own
district, CBS, is historically an agricultural town. It's not built on the
fishery. I don't have a fish plant in my district, unlike a lot of other
Members, but agriculture, and still to this day, is the single biggest economic
driver within the community, outside of the bedroom community aspect. There are
a lot of farmers in my district. I know a lot of them. They've been there
forever. It's a succession thing, down through the generations.
I have
spoken to the minister on occasions about this exactly issue before this was
ever announced. I have some young farmers who are trying to get into the
industry and accessible land is a huge issue. So this will go a long ways in
addressing those concerns. For that, we do support it.
On that
note, Madam Speaker, I'm really surprised by government choosing to bring
forward this private Member's motion for debate today. The reason I say this is
because there's an unwritten rule: You don't bring forward a resolution that
will end up embarrassing yourself.
That's
exactly what I believe government is doing here in this particular resolution.
Like I said, we'll support it. That's not the issue. It was a part of our 2015
Blue Book commitment. In our PC policy, it was a plank on the agrifoods platform
but only one of the many planks to the agrifoods platform. As a stand-alone
policy, this is not enough. We will say more on that shortly, but that's not the
only reason it's embarrassing for government opposite.
The
government announced this policy on February 16 and in their news release it was
heralded about how they receive roughly 80 applications annually for
agriculture development ... the department initiated a comprehensive review of
its Lands Act. The review committee's
report included recommendations to improve the application process based on
input from the public.
It went
on to say, Enhancing access to Crown lands benefits residents, municipalities
and businesses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The Provincial Government
is listening to the needs of the local industry, and we are providing increased
access to help agriculture companies, which will help them grow and strengthen
our economy.
By
making more land available for agricultural development, the Provincial
Government is helping new and current farmers and producers find new ways to
expand and improve their business. Increasing the capacity and competitiveness
of the agriculture industry brings direct employment benefits to local
communities.
What
happened less than one week later, Madam Speaker, the premier announced the
grand restructuring of government, yet this is the second one in 15 months. In
that news release, it was announced that the Lands Branch would be moving to
Corner Brook. Everything at the Howley Building was going to Corner Brook to
make it more synergy was associated, it was the best place where most of the
agricultural lands were to tie with forestry.
On the
surface of it, if you're just sitting back and you listen to the announcement,
you're saying, okay, well that's fair enough. When you put it in all the
context, you got a week earlier, we're opening up all this Crown land to make it
more accessible for farmers and agriculture, new farmers coming into the system.
It all sounded great.
Now a
week later you're taking your main office and you're shifting which staff, we
don't know what's gone. That was another issue last week. We went through all
that last week. No one knows where we're going and, yes, you've thrown this new
policy of freeing up all this Crown lands for agricultural purposes and right
now staff doesn't even know if they've got a job. And you've done it a week
apart. It astounds me and Members here of our caucus that this was done bang,
bang, and no one really knows what's happening, right.
You've
got a division of government, which Crown Lands expect to double the amount of
lands available to farmers in the province. At the same time you're expected to
do this, they're being uprooted. Their headquarters in St. John's is being
pulled out from beneath their feet. Employees are being asked to relocate to
Corner Brook. Some will not want to move. We're told it's just not some, it's a
great many of them. Expertise will be lost.
The
efficiency of the office will be compromised by the chaos the government has
created. Everything will have to be moved, taken down, shipped away, set up
again, who knows where. Because we don't really know where, we've asked that.
All we know it's in the vicinity of Corner Brook. New personnel will have to be
hired and brought up to speed, and who knows who they will be. This division,
kicked from pillar to post, is supposed to lead this government's one and only
initiative to double agricultural land and food production in our province.
Madam
Speaker, on the note of we don't know who's going to be looking after this
expanded agricultural program, from The
Western Star there's a quote, and the Minister of AES, the Member for Corner
Brook is quoted: So not only are we bringing jobs to Corner Brook within the
restructured departments of government, but I'm also telling you we're bringing
more jobs to Corner Brook through synergies in our post-secondary education
institutes. So I guess the next PMR will be they're relocating MUN out there too
with more information to come.
Madam
Speaker, we're moving people. We're not bringing new this is not new
employment, and if that is the purpose to relocate, to uproot all these people's
lives, that can be humorous to some but I've talked to a lot of those people,
they are very stressed. They don't know where they're going, what they're doing.
These same people are going to be responsible for this PMR, this agricultural,
freeing up all this Crown lands, and these same staff have to deal with that
file. So I think it's a bit it's ironic to do.
One week
you're announcing this great plan for agriculture, next week you're telling the
staff that basically, you're blowing up the Crown Lands office out here in St.
John's, and we don't know what resemblance it's going to have in Corner Brook.
Like I said, all we know is that office will be in Corner Brook. We don't know
what building, don't know how many is going, don't know what it's going to cost.
I was told there was going to be savings. We don't know what those savings are,
other than there are going to be savings.
We're
being told there are a lot of staff right now that are uncertain if they can go.
That puts a family in a real jam if you have two people working, one got to go
to Corner Brook with 20 years into their career and your husband or wife is in
the same boat. Do you split up a family? It's a tough decision to make. You're
getting these same people that you're expecting to bring in this agriculture
policy and you're doing that to their lives.
In my
opinion, Madam Speaker, there should be a lot of shame on that side of the
House. For the Member for Corner Brook, the MHA for Corner Brook to be out
touting to the local media how he's bringing jobs to Corner Brook and hear in my
comments here today, I hope people at home that work at Crown Lands can hear
what he's saying because that is shameful.
This
division, as I said, is kicked from pillar to post. We're leading government's
one and only initiative to double agricultural land and food production in the
province. I mean, this government cannot be serious. Is this what passes for
good governance through careful planning, for even having leadership overseeing
a sensitive growing industry in our province? It's utter pandemonium.
Again, I
stress that he should go and talk to the workers at Crown Lands. They're not
allowed to talk but I can talk for them. They're not allowed to talk. They've
been advised to say nothing in fear of repercussions. I'm not afraid of
repercussions.
The
turmoil you're inflicting on the professionals at Crown Lands is unbelievable,
unjustifiable, callus and indifferent to their well-being. Those are strong
words but, again, I think all Members should go and talk to people in their
constituencies who were affected by this and they'll get the same answer.
Then, at
the very same time, they lay on their backs the entire obligation for the
success of your one and only agrifoods policy. Like I say, Madam Speaker, it's
shameful.
Like I
say, when I asked the new minister responsible and I realize he's only in the
division for several weeks. I wanted to ask questions on Crown lands and get
around to eventfully probably asking something about this agricultural policy. I
started out with some very basic questions. Will you confirm which building is
going to house Crown Lands? He didn't know. The geographical, physical location,
he said, I think it's one of the things we're looking at but it's going to be in
Corner Brook. So where does that they have no idea where it's going. I point
out to the minister with the planning and why they haven't figured out where
it's going.
Crown
Lands is currently located in a government-owned building. I laid all of that
out. I asked him would they have to lease some space. He didn't know. All he
could tell me was his colleague from the Department of Transportation and Works
has undertaken a review of lease space and the footprint in our province.
Government restructuring was going to save $25 million. That included 300 in
management being let go. He threw that into the fact that moving Crown Lands was
going I can't even go there any further on that, Madam Speaker. That to me is
I give him the full I guess you give him the opportunity to come up with
answers and it got silly.
I tell
the minister, people were watching and they've contacted me. Those same people
again, this government wants to bring in this agricultural policy and they're
patting their backs. They're all so happy. The MHA for Corner Brook, the
Minister of AES is so proud. They talked about the jobs coming to Corner Brook.
They're going to save the agriculture and they're going to save our food
security.
Madam
Speaker, do you know what? It's only crock. Everything we're hearing lately,
that's all it is. With all due respect, I can't say any other because this
government has been given the opportunity to answer the questions for those
people. All those people involved, and this is their PMR they're so proud
of. People actually care. Not only workers in Crown Lands, which are very
important, farmers care, the public care, the real estate people that use the
Crown Lands office, the general public that use that office. The amount of
business done in that office over there is probably about I'd like to know the
exact percentage. I know it's a high percentage here on the Avalon Peninsula.
So
again, moving this all to Corner Brook is fair and dandy, when, as the minister
told me, you're going to have two offices out there now. They got one there now;
they're going to make it their main office out there, which is the only one that
was the main office in here on the Avalon Peninsula. They are taking all that
and they're going to leave an extra office in Corner Brook what got 19,000
people the surrounding area got more, obviously.
You're
leaving an area where you got 80 per cent of your business if you're doing it in
St. John's area and you're putting it out there. Then you bring this agriculture
policy, which I might want to remind the Members opposite, too, there's an awful
lot of agricultural lands in this area of the Avalon Peninsula, and there's a
lot of people that are going to want to apply, they're going to want to do their
stuff, and right now everything's in turmoil. So this policy, we may see it come
to fruition in years down the road, but I don't anticipate any time soon.
I'm
going to soon wrap up there now. I think I've made my points. In conclusion on
this topic, to try to simplify it, because I know Members opposite try to
simplify it for us, because there are a lot of days they try to tell everyone
that they're a lot smarter than we are we leave that to the powers that be to
make that judgement; I could care less.
It's a
very simple thing. You're asking a group of people to implement freeing up this
Crown land to make agriculture grow in the province which we support that, but
you got to give the people an opportunity to be able to do this work. Right now,
those people are no more concerned about agricultural land than that piece of
carpet there, Madam Speaker.
They're
worried about real estate agents looking and appraising their homes, what about
their children, what about their husbands' and wives' jobs. What do we do?
Should we move? What's involved? Are we going to move? No, no, wait now, they're
not being told they can move; they're told not to speak. We haven't identified
who's going to move, because their directors are applying for a job that they
had to write a letter and they haven't heard back yet. So they don't even know
if they got a boss, and they can't be told if they're going or not. But then
again they're told no, don't say anything because of fear of repercussion.
This is
true stuff. This is not a concocted tale; these are true facts. A lot of people
have reached out to me, and it's quite shocking when they reach out and they
tell me that. I talked to a lady yesterday, she's had the appraisers in, she's
getting her house ready for sale, in anticipation that her husband will be
moved. She's looking at getting relocated in her own job, but he has not been
officially told, and he's not allowed to speak about it.
So
again, I'll remind the government opposite you can laugh, you can poke, you can
do what you want. This agriculture policy that's freeing up land is great, no
issue. We support it and it's the second time on record supporting it. But there
got to be a lot more compassion given to the people's lives that's being
affected by a simple move. The move is not making sense, and no one has told us
yet to make any sense to us here.
I gave
the minister that opportunity last week and he made a total, total mess of it.
Now people are out there more up in arms than ever because it was not explained
properly. Then I have the Minister of AES and MHA for Corner Brook out there in
the media saying that this is not a job creation thing. This is upsetting
people's lives and moving it no one has proven to me or anyone here that this
move makes sense. I've given you an opportunity, I've given you it before and
I'll give up another opportunity in the coming days to prove otherwise.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity to speak about agriculture in this province. That's
what I want to speak about today is the tremendous opportunities that exist in
agriculture in this province.
I
noticed the previous Member when he spoke, he didn't speak much about the
potential for agriculture. I'm not really surprised because his government, when
they were in power, ignored agriculture for a numbers of years, Madam Speaker.
They refused to listen to what the Federation of Agriculture wanted. So I'm not
surprised that they once again are ignoring the potential of agriculture in this
province, but I'm going to talk about agriculture. I'm not going to be diverted
by his comments.
Madam
Speaker, I grew up in an agriculture area. I grew up in the community of
Jeffrey's. There were fields of vegetables all around me. There were farm
animals around. In the Codroy Valley, as well, there were many some of my
uncles were farmers involved in the agricultural industry. So it was all around
me as I grew up.
Many
people don't think of Newfoundland as an agricultural province. Certainly, I've
seen different as I grew up in Jeffrey's and the Codroy Valley in terms of the
vegetable production and the livestock that was once produced in those areas,
Madam Speaker.
Over the
years, we've had a change. There used to be tons of vegetables exported from
these areas to St. John's, to Corner Brook, to these other areas but in the last
30 years or so, we've seen a change of where our vegetables come from and where
our farm products come from.
A lot of
it is imported from other provinces. It's imported from other places in Atlantic
Canada and sometimes outside of Canada. So it's important to understand the
potential that exists and the way things have changed in the last number of
years.
We've
seen a move to larger and larger farms. Some of our small family farms here in
this province weren't able to compete with those large-scale farming, the
economics of scale that could be achieved by having farms that were hundreds of
acres and growing, producing potatoes and other crops as well. So those were
some of the changes that were happening.
Also,
there were changes happening in the way people purchased their vegetables, where
they purchased them from. It used to be sometimes that people would purchase
vegetables directly from farmers. They would buy it, store it themselves, 30 or
40 years or more ago. Over the last 30 years, we've seen a switch to people
purchasing their vegetables at supermarkets, or big box stores and the
distribution that happens is again at a scale that sort of leaves out some of
the farmers that we have in this province.
We have
a number of changes happening in the agriculture industry in this province and,
in some ways, some of those reasons relate to why our production has fallen over
the years. We have to look at ways of getting back, producing more food.
The
Member who spoke before me spoke about food security, and I think that's a very
important point because there's a couple ways of looking at food security. From
an individual point of view, does a person have healthy food, fresh food that
they can access, that they can eat? Also, there's food security from a
provincial point of view; do we have enough food in this province to feed
ourselves?
When we
look at the fact that we only produce about 10 per cent of the vegetables and
other products that we eat in this province, it's problematic. You can see it on
the shelves in grocery stores when there's a storm or for some other reason the
boats are prevented from bringing the vegetables into the province, we see that
we don't have much produce available in stores.
Those
are some issues around food security. So how do we change this pattern and how
do we increase the production in this province and how do we compete effectively
with out-of-province producers? I think in the few minutes that I have today,
I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the things this government is doing
to increase agricultural production in this province, and some of the things
that other people in this province are doing to increase food production in this
province as well.
In
The Way Forward, government made a
bold commitment that they would double agricultural production in this province
in five years. So that's a bold plan to double the amount of production in five
years. What do we have to do to make that happen? One of the things we've done,
and it's the subject of this motion, is to make more land available to farmers.
While we
were in Opposition, our caucus met with the Federation of Agriculture. I talked
to farmers in my own district and one of the problems they raised with me, and
they raised with our caucus, was the fact of the availability of land and the
difficulty in getting land. So when this government came to power we recognized
that as an issue. We recognized the potential of agriculture. We recognized the
problem that existed in availability of land and the ease of access of this
land.
We have
only a certain amount of land in this province that's suitable for agriculture,
and there are many other competing demands on that land. So this government has
sort of tried to make agricultural land more easily available to farmers who
want to get started. That is one of the things that is happening with this piece
of legislation that was brought forward in the last session of the House; that
was announced in Little Rapids in my district a little while ago.
Also
another thing we've seen is we've seen support for farmers markets. People will
pay if you look at Lester's Farm here in St. John's, you'll see that people
like to go to farmers markets. They like to purchase food directly from farmers.
It's fresh; it's part of an experience. They take their children. They make a
day of it, supporting local businesses. So it's a very interesting trend that's
happening in the market. I see similar things happening in my district as well,
with the Wells Farm in Robinsons. They're doing much the same thing, and the way
they market themselves is a little different.
On
Facebook, for example, they'll show them planting the vegetables. They'll show
the vegetables growing throughout the year, and then finally at the end of the
season you can come to their market and purchase the vegetable that you've
watched grow over the year. So there are a number of things that are happening
in terms of the way farmers market themselves in this province to compete with
the big box stores.
In terms
of agriculture and where it's going, I think we have to have large-scale
operations that can compete with those large-scale operations out of province. I
think we have to have the economies of scale to be able to do that. In some
sectors we are, and we have to do that in terms of vegetable production as well
so we can service people who want to buy their vegetables through supermarkets
and big box stores.
We have
to be able to do that, but we also have to be innovative in the way we market
our material through farmers markets. There are several farmers markets that are
very vital. Here in St. John's there's a farmers market. In Corner Brook there's
a wonderful fine market which has there's a butcher that goes there. People
sell strawberries there, vegetables and things like that. It's a wonderful place
to go if you want to pick up some food. Those things are happening as well.
I think
one of the other things that's happening is you're seeing efforts to involve
young farmers in the industry again. That's important, because if you look at
the statistics, only 6 per cent of the farmers in this province are under 65. So
we have a lot of older farmers and we have a few younger farmers getting
involved in the industry.
The
announcement we had on the lands was at Simmons farm in Little Rapids. David
Simmons, he's a very innovative dairy farmer there in Little Rapids. Sometimes
we think of farming as a sort of low-tech industry but if you go to David
Simmons farm there, Pure Holsteins in Little Rapids, David and Sara, his wife,
they're both very young people, very tech savvy.
You
might be surprised; they have a robot that milks their cows. Each cow has a tag
on their ear and there's a system set up where the cows go through when they
want to be milked and the robot milks them.
If
there's a problem on the farm he gets a message on his iPhone. He looks at it,
identifies the problem. He determines if he has to go there or if he can fix it
through to his iPhone.
The
amount of food that each cow eats is sometimes recorded. The amount of milk they
give, if there are any problems with the cow that might be possible diseases,
that is all recorded with the technology they have on this farm.
He's
president of the Young Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador. He's a good
example; him and his wife are good examples of people the young face of
agriculture in this province.
Another
dairy in this province dairy in my district in St. David's is the
second-largest dairy in Canada. So it's a very vibrant industry there.
I wanted
to also talk about the research station in Pynn's Brook, which is a very
important part of the agriculture. I've been there several times. I've talked to
people there several times, and they're so enthusiastic about the work they do.
Not only are they expanding the concepts of what we can grow in this province,
they're also looking at ways to grow it and what's the best variety of crops to
grow in this province.
They're
doing that with things like well, they started off with corn years ago,
working on wheat, and last year they grew some canola. These are crops that a
few years ago we didn't think we could grow commercially in this province. So
these crops are being grown. They're expanding what we do; they're expanding
what we do in the industry.
They've
also experimented with grapes. Some people see grapes as something that you
can't grow in Newfoundland or that you can't grow on a commercial scale. A few
years ago in Nova Scotia people thought the same thing. Now we have several
wineries in Nova Scotia that are winning awards around the world for the type of
wine they produce.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I've drank lots of it.
MR. REID:
Yes. One of the Members says
he's drank lots of it. He's very discriminating in the type of wine he drinks as
well, so it has to be the best. So we're expanding what can be done in this
province. There is lots of potential here.
Also, I
want to talk about different crops. Like, the cranberry industry is another
example of a crop in this province where we have a lot of potential. We started
off maybe 20 years ago in the cranberry industry, and it's a very capital
intensive industry because it costs about $30,000 an acre to prepare a cranberry
farm. You have to dig out some of the bog, you put a layer of sand, you plant
the twigs for the berries and they produce. It takes a number of years before
they get to the stage to produce. Myself and the Member for Stephenville Port
au Port visited the cranberry farm harvest
MR. FINN:
Along with the minister.
MR. REID:
along with the minister
this year. It was wonderful to see the crops being produced there at a scale
that is approaching a level where they can produce, where they can justify a
processing facility.
So it's
great to see that happening in the province. There are lots of potential for
agriculture in the province. I'm just so proud to be part of a government that's
taking this potential serious and are looking at making more land available,
they're making more funds available for new people to enter the industry and
they're looking at programs such as Little Green Thumbs which involve elementary
school children, things like Rooting for Health, all very positive, Madam
Speaker. I'd like to hear the Members opposite support this motion as well.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. REID:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
Again,
it's indeed a privilege to get up and speak on behalf of the people from the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I want to build on the remarks of my
colleague for CBS, Conception Bay South, said earlier. I'm going to talk a
little bit about what the plan should be and where we should go when we talk
about the agriculture industry, especially when we talk about food security.
This
resolution is one that we will support. Not because we have any faith in the
government's ability to do it, but because we support the objectives having
already announced a lot of them ourselves. It's like everything in
The Way Forward document; they are
bits and pieces, I think, of some of our ideas.
We keep
hearing about The Way Forward. The
hon. Member was up today talking about The
Way Forward, but what does the brochure actually say about the policy we're
debating here today? On page 16, it states: Newfoundland and Labrador is
currently only about ten per cent self-sufficient in its non-supply managed
agrifood requirements. It is critical that our Province makes significant
progress towards food security in light of the global food crisis projected by
2050. In the longer-term, our Government will increase the availability of Crown
Lands for agriculture purposes, which will contribute to increased agricultural
food production and improve food security in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Here's
what it says on page 42: By 2022, Newfoundland and Labrador will have
increased its food self-sufficiency to at least 20 per cent. Our province is
currently only about ten per cent self-sufficient in its food requirements.
That's all it says. That's what it says, and those are five
tiny sentences. That's what the government's agriculture strategy is in
The Way Forward document. That's the
only words that they use in it. After years of planning in Opposition,
consulting with the best economic minds in the province, or so we're told, and
after 15 months in government, that's all they can come up with. This is
not a plan. This is not a
plan at all. A plan states out objectives, lays out a path to achieve it.
Their
approach today is like a wish, a daydream, wouldn't-it-be-nice kind of thing.
Seriously, the entire agricultural policy in
The Way Forward document, the Members opposite keep talking about,
is no real economic plan. It's a scam. It's not an economic plan. It doesn't set
out what we need to do.
The
words in The Telegram of the Liberal
plan, their plan before the election, were magical, fantasy. They compared it to
flying reindeer and dancing brooms. That's not good enough. Agricultural
producers needs a government who knows what it's doing, needs a government to
have a detailed strategy that involves them and listens to them. They need a
strategy that builds on the great work government has been doing in partnership
with them. They want an approach that is evidence based and best practices.
That's
the approach our party took, both government and in our last campaign. We
brought forward details on an agricultural strategy to build on the growth that
has already been achieved; growth in food like the cranberry industry that the
Member before me just spoke about. Some of the Members, and they know what I
mean, this is a great industry for Central Newfoundland. We're making real gains
in that industry. Wouldn't the strategy be even more important in partnership
with farmers to build on that kind of growth?
As
stated in an announcement making Crown land more available for agriculture, it's
a great beginning but it's just one part of it. More action will be needed to
help farmers and producers. Take full advantage of the opportunities in our
province to increase local food production. We've made great progress in recent
years and major success stories have to be celebrated, but making our Crown
lands available for agriculture must be part of the bigger strategy that's
needed.
In 2015,
our blueprint, our book committed to make food security a provincial priority,
to commit and protect and expand farmland, to commit and relax Crown lands
policies for farm use. Does that sound familiar? I think it does. I bet it does.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I know it does.
Our
party also announced that we would grow the agrifoods sector, grow it to support
communities and jobs, to take advantage of food security, to supply the people
with kinds of healthy, local-grown food that we ought to be eating. Our plan was
set out for board targets for food security. We will work with farmers and with
the Federation of Agriculture and with others in the agriculture sector to
increase the amount of local food people in this province eat.
We asked
what percentage of the food that we eat should be produced locally by 2025. We
tried to aim high. We will follow the strategy by making it easier for new
participants to set up farms and start running them. We will do it by protecting
and expanding farm land, and relaxing Crown land policies for the use. We will
do it by removing restrictions on farmers related to selling timber clear on
their land. We will do it by working with farmers to maintain family-farm
operations. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that later on.
We will
do it by taking advantage of opportunities to expand primary productions for
berries, beef, lamb and pork. We'll do it by making it easier for local produce
to get to the markets. We'll work with farmers and the Federation of Agriculture
to identify barriers from getting healthy, local food and to find solutions.
We'll
work with farmers and others to plan the best way to achieve growth. This is all
part of our promise in our Blue Book. We will identify way more than what's in
The
Way Forward document. We'll find and
identify and address transportation, storage and producers, where they can
access retail. We'll promote and invest in local farm markets. These farm
markets showcase the important role agriculture plays in our economy and our
society. We'll promote community gardens and I'm going to speak a little bit
about that later too.
Community gardens groups can help get back to traditional roots and live
healthier lives. This is something we strongly encourage and benefits seniors
and also our young. We'll partner to support farmers, forums and agriculture in
the classroom, programs so that young people can help lead the way. We will work
with organizations and provincial schools to expand programs to make sure all
school age children have access to healthy food. We'll invest in Kids Eat Smart
and expand the program to strengthen the link between local food producers.
We'll
also commit an investment to food access in northern and remote communities.
We'll commit to these policies because they form a detailed strategy, and that's
where we need to be. This is not just about access to land. Young farmers need
to be able to access capital. We should consider allowing them access to our
business programs, and establishing a guarantee program similar to the fisheries
loan guarantee program.
There's
no single announcement in itself that will lead us to greater food security. We
need a strategy. This government does not like strategies.
The Way Forward document makes fun of strategies. It mocked the idea
of a strategy imagine that. In place of a strategy plan, the Liberals have
given nothing but a wish, a fantasy and magical beans.
To make
matters worse, they have made a mess with our Crown lands by throwing the entire
Crown Lands division completely in chaos. I'm going to just elaborate on that a
little bit, Madam Speaker. I spoke to people at Crown Lands and they have
absolutely no direction. People don't know what's happening over there.
If we're
looking at moving Crown Lands and the people the one thing I've learned as an
MHA, and I do a lot of work when it comes to the Crown Lands division for my
constituents, and the knowledge these people have at that office over there is
second to none. They can go back and give you the history and explain things
that make it because a lot of times in Crown Lands, especially where we're
dealing with a lot of titles of property, people didn't understand whether the
Crown owned the property, whether they thought they owned it or what, but the
expertise in that department over there is second to none.
I really
want to thank all of them over there for being so courteous to me because when I
did have questions to ask, I have to say, they really came through and answered
the questions that I needed. Now sometimes not what my constituents wanted to
hear, but at least we found out the answers they needed.
Farmers
deserve better. They should have the support of this whole House. We believe in
improving food security. We believe in growing the industry.
Madam
Speaker, I just want to talk a little bit about my own district and my own
experience. I know I only have a few minutes left. My dad, he was a fisherman
and he was a farmer. I pulled the short end of the straw all the time because my
brothers were all older than me.
My
brothers were all older than me and they got to go out on the water where I'd
love to be, but sometimes I was sent to what we call Deer Marsh in Flatrock. I
was in to do the weeding and having the flies eating me every day while my
brothers were out most of the times at the fish, but it was a great experience.
It was a great experience thinning out the turnips; the same thing with carrots.
I can
remember one year, and most of the people in here I guess they'll know, we
always judged how much potatoes you set by the sacks of seed. We sat one year 19
sacks of seed, because I remember taking the 19 sacks of seed in when we were
setting them and having them ready for the day we had to set it, which was a lot
of potatoes back then.
Times
have changed. It's something we need to do as a government and as a party, that
they need to do, is to promote we have to realize how healthy our own local
food is.
Madam
Speaker, I like to eat. There's nothing better than Sunday dinner and when you
can have fresh vegetables. I know each year when the farmers market goes down in
Torbay on the side of the road you can see the lineup of cars and everybody
wanting fresh vegetables. It's something we have to promote. We have to really
promote our local industry. It's important to all of us that we do support our
local industry.
We
talked today about children. There's nothing better we can do for our children
than to make sure they eat healthy. It's great to be able to go to all your fast
food places and everything else, and we all enjoy it, but every time we get the
opportunity to support our local farmers and support the produce they produce,
it's important that we bring it home.
I'm just
going to go back to Crown lands again. This move that government made was a
great move. It's a good move to open more land, but I hope by moving the office
out of St. John's with the expertise that was there it looks like we may have
to train all these new people. This policy will be years, years trying to come
through so that people can access more land.
We
talked a little bit I know the Member who introduced it talked about Kids Eat
Smart. That's a great program that takes advantage of we have a lot of
children in our schools that, unfortunately, don't get to eat proper foods. The
breakfast program, I always support it and I'm very happy it's in a couple of
schools in my district.
We have
children who go to school hungry. We have children who really need to make sure
we look at our health and the health of our children. There's nothing better
you can do for your child than to make sure they're eating proper foods. We
produce it here in Newfoundland. We should make sure as parents, and especially
here in government, we should be doing everything we can to help our farmers.
We
talked today about young farmers, and a lot of people I think the Member
mentioned that there are not a lot of young people getting into farming, but I
think if we promote it a lot more, opened up more land, made it easier for young
people to stay with their families, because I tell you, it's like an addiction.
It's like the fishery. The only reason why farmers leave is because there's no
future in it. It's the same thing with our industries like our it's important
for rural Newfoundland. It's important for my district. It's important for the
District of CBS, like the Member stated.
So I
think government, while you're opening up land, there's so much more you can do.
Just don't close the door on doing one thing. Have a policy. Get a policy and
get a strategy so people can understand where we're leading, where the future is
going to bring the farm industry and agriculture in our province.
This is
a great area to grow. I know we have great land that can grow great vegetables,
and there are a lot of varieties. There are a huge number of varieties of
different vegetables that can be produced right here in the province. So I call
on government, while this is a great move, there's so much more you can do and
now is the time to get at it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
It is
indeed a pleasure to stand this afternoon and talk to our private Member's
motion today and I guess reflect on some of the things we've done since we
became government with regard to agriculture in this province. Because, Madam
Speaker or sorry, Mr. Speaker. In 15 short months we've made great progress in
the amount of land that's available in our province for the agriculture
industry.
One of
the first things we did, under the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, or the
Minister of BTCRD, was they got together and identified 62 areas of interest all
over the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. These areas of
interest have now been areas that we can go and start farming. There are 62, we
have 19 that are ready to go and the other 42 are very close. They range from
everywhere, from the districts in Labrador and all throughout the province.
One of
the things I think when you look at the availability of farmland, you look
around, I look around to many of my colleagues and primarily I guess to some
extent, my colleagues from off the Avalon Peninsula. My colleague from St.
George's Humber who spoke earlier on this and my colleague from Bonavista, I
think who is going to have some remarks later, my colleague from Lewisporte
Twillingate, and my colleague from Terra Nova. These are farming areas in our
province, Mr. Speaker, and it's very important we support that because here we
are today only growing 10 per cent of what we eat. We can't be there anymore,
Mr. Speaker.
So we
recognize the need of increasing our food sustainability and food
self-sufficiency. One of the things that is so important in doing that is
freeing up Crown land. When you look at 64,000 hectares of land, that will more
than triple the land base available for farming in this province. I can tell you
the industry, whether it's the young farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, the Newfoundland and
Labrador dairy farmers I spoke yesterday at the Newfoundland and Labrador egg
farmers we have a lot of farming in this province, and it's important we
support that. One of the ways we can support that is the availability of Crown
lands and changing it so that no longer will it take three years for a farmer or
anybody in this province to get a piece of Crown land.
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs worked diligently on this when he was responsible
for Crown lands and his parliamentary assistant as well. They worked diligently
on Crown lands and making Crown lands accessible, not only for the farming
industry but for municipalities as well. Because one thing that's very important
for us to do is to free up that Crown land.
We've
been working with municipalities, Aboriginal groups, Corner Brook Pulp and
Paper. These are entities that have overlapping areas when it comes to Crown
lands in the province and they've been very receptive to this. We have met with
the industry stakeholders and discussed the priorities and the priorities that
we have as a government. When you look around, there are many opportunities.
I would
be actually remiss, Mr. Speaker, and I meant to do this in the beginning, but
I'd like to just let the farmers know that were affected by this weekend's wind
storm that, as a department, we're there to assist in any way we can. We have
farmers right here within the city limits that lost seven of 15 greenhouses on
the weekend, who lost full crops in some of these greenhouses.
These
greenhouses, this winter, are growing fresh lettuce here in the city. We have a
greenhouse right now in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's that's getting close to
having a crop of fresh strawberries ready to harvest and we'll be harvesting
strawberries in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's within the next couple of weeks. We
see these initiatives and things that we can be doing here in the province and
some of the great advancements that we made.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague for Cape St. Francis referenced other support, other than
the land. I can assure the hon. Member that the reservation of Crown lands for
agriculture is only step one. It's only step one. In last year's budget, we
committed over $10 million to Growing Forward and the provincial agriculture
program. I'm happy today to say that this coming July, Canada's agriculture
ministers will be here in St. John's where we hope to announce the next
framework agreement on agriculture and agriculture support for the country.
Mr.
Speaker, it's very important. When we represent the province on a national
stage, it's important that we make sure and we hear this all the time from
groups like the Federation of Agriculture that Ottawa hears that our
agriculture industry is different compared to a lot of the agriculture
industries in the country. Many provinces are in maintenance stage, while we're
in an infancy stage when you look at the fact that we're only growing 10 per
cent of what we're eating here in the province.
So when
you look at the economy and things over the past decade or so and you see some
of the failures of the previous administration and the failures come into the
fact that they had $25 billion in oil revenue unfortunately, if you look back
over that period of time, farm cash receipts didn't increase. They didn't
diversify. Why did we not diversify the agriculture sector when we had the
opportunity? It's similar to the fishery; it's similar to the forestry. These
are renewable, natural resources that we didn't invest in when we had the
opportunity, when we had $25 billion in revenue coming from a non-renewable
resource.
What a
better thing to do, Mr. Speaker, than take revenue from a non-renewable resource
and invest it in a renewable resource? That's progressive thinking, but that was
lacking and we can see it. The numbers don't lie. Farm cash receipts didn't
increase in their time in government and it's unfortunate, very unfortunate.
The
Member for CBS got up this afternoon and went on a little bit of rant at one
point talking about today's private Member's motion and called it silly. Well,
when you look at the world today and the fact that 30 per cent of the world's
population by 2030, or 50 per cent of the world's population by 2030 is going to
live in Asia and they're going to compete with us make no mistake, the people
in Asia are going to compete with us for our food supply, and we need to
increase what we can do for ourselves.
This is
not just about the situations we see when Marine Atlantic has two days and can't
get across the Gulf and you go into a supermarket and the shelves are starting
to run down. That's one food security issue. There's a much larger food security
issue when we realize that as populations grow, primarily in Asia, we're going
to compete for all of our commodities, whether it's wheat, canola and the rest
of the commodities that we consume every day.
Mr.
Speaker, they talk about availability of Crown lands and the process. As an
Opposition MHA, and even today, I have many calls in my district about Crown
lands. There was a Crown lands review done. It was this government that brought
in changes to the Crown lands act this past fall sitting.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Great legislation.
MR. CROCKER:
A great piece of legislation.
I'm
happy to say today, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that came out of an
independent lands act review with regard to Crown lands is digitization of the
vault. So the vault, which exists here in the city today, we have a plan that
will fully digitize that vault so those records will be accessible to anybody in
Newfoundland and Labrador, with the click of a mouse. And that's a piece of work
that we've undertaken, we've made a commitment to get it done, and I can assure
the Members of this House that that vault will be digitized, once and for all.
Mr.
Speaker, you look at other things and the Member for the District of Cape St.
Francis brought it up and some of my colleagues also when you talk about farm
markets and you see the great investment here in St. John's in the farm market.
We've seen an investment in Clarenville this coming year into a farm market. We
saw one last year in Central, Mark's Market in Wooddale. These markets are
popping up all around the province simply because there's a demand. There is a
demand everywhere we look around the province for these types of markets and
what they can provide to our society.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The old Metrobus.
MR. CROCKER:
Exactly, the old Metrobus
facility is going to become a farmer's market.
We see
it all around. If you look at the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave,
when you're going in to Bay Roberts, there's a farmer there, Roots I think it's
called, Root Seller, and he's providing fresh fruits and vegetables to the
people of that region. Some of the areas of interest are actually in the
Makinsons and Bay Roberts area, along with the Markland area. So there's
opportunity here on the Avalon as well. And great opportunity in the greenhouse
industry when you look at some of the things that are happening here within the
city limits in the greenhouse industry.
Also,
chatting with my colleague for Lewisporte Twillingate talking about the
community
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
He is my friend.
We
chatted about the fact that the Community Healthy Living Fund actually has an
element that supports community gardens, and community gardens is something I
think that everybody in this House would agree can play a vital role, not only
in teaching farming but also providing fresh vegetables to people in communities
that don't necessarily have the availability of land to do so.
Mr.
Speaker, this being World Nutrition Month and this being Dietitian's Day, on my
way into the House I got an infographic and it's called My Plate. When you look
at it, you see fruits and grains and vegetables, protein and dairy. The
unfortunate part of that is for example, when we look at dairy as a province,
we are self-sufficient in dairy, but one of the things that this new Crown lands
will do, it will open up abilities for our dairy farmers to grow more of their
own forage and that will make them less reliant on outside sources.
One of
the things that struck me most back in September when I took on the role in this
new department, I asked the question: We must be growing enough potatoes in this
province to support ourselves? Well, to my surprise, we grow one in six potatoes
we eat in this province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. CROCKER:
One in six potatoes that we
eat in this province.
We have
a tremendous piece of work to do to ensure that we grow more than one in six
potatoes in this province. This Crown land will certainly help to do that. We
have some great Crown land throughout the province. We found some soil in the
Cormack area. If you could see the pictures, it resembles Prince Edward Island
and there are hundreds and hundreds of acres of this soil.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll come back to my statement about this being National Nutrition
Month and Dietitians Day. What Food Security NL has told us for some time that
the challenges we face is getting new entrants into farming. Currently, only 6
per cent of our farmers are under 35 years of age. Albeit, our self-sufficiently
in dairy and eggs, we have to become more self-sufficient in the forage.
My
colleague for St. George's Humber raised the Pynn's Brook research station and
the work that's been done there. If you look at last year, we had the famous
canola field and that was quite successful; but if you look at some of the
origins of what has happened out at Pynn's Brook and the work in the Pasadena
area, about five or six years ago we were growing cattle corn there as an
experiment, and it worked out. Today, we have farmers actually in this province
who are self-sufficient in cattle corn. We have dairy farmers who are now
self-sufficient in winter wheat.
So you
can see what's happening. By government putting an emphasis on R&D, we're
helping our farmers. Mr. Speaker, we have a very active farming community in
this province. They may be small in numbers, but I can assure they're strong in
stature.
I've
been working closely with the Federation of Agriculture and the NL Young Famers.
I was in Little Rapids a couple of weeks ago, along with my colleague for St.
George's Humber and my colleague for Stephenville and my colleague for Corner
Brook, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier, where we announced
Growing Forward funding, we announced Crown lands funding and Crown land that
we're going to make available.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a lot to do, but I can assure you that it's policies like this
one and it's a department that is driven and I can assure you the agriculture
and lands branch in Corner Brook is a very driven division of this government. I
can assure you the hard work that these men and women are doing day in and day
out will help us get to that goal of 20 per cent by 2022. I'm confident of that,
and I'm confident that working together as a province we can certainly meet the
challenges that we have in food security.
So
again, it's an absolute pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to talk
about food security in our province and I can assure you, as a government, we
will follow through on our commitment to food security.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
quite pleased to stand this afternoon and to speak to this private Member's
resolution, particularly because of the fact that it's not just talking about
releasing Crown lands; it's the purpose of why it's releasing Crown lands.
One of
the researchers in our office had a bit of a funny note at the top of my notes
and I'm going to say what he's written because I did it to the MHA for Torngat
Mountains earlier and he said: Yeah, that's funny. It is: I wanted to thank the
two MHAs from the legendary farming districts of Labrador West and Torngat
Mountains. But the thing is as I said to our researcher and the Member for
Torngat Mountains and I recognize together, in actual fact, historically
especially on the north coast with the Mennonites, not the Mennonites the
AN HON. MEMBER:
Moravians.
MS. MICHAEL:
The Moravians, thank you.
With the
Moravians they did a lot of farming very definitely and now there are a lot of
experimental things going on in Labrador. I know in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay
area, I'm not sure about Labrador West, but a lot of attention is starting to be
paid to farming in Labrador. I think it's interesting that it was the two MHAs
for Labrador who brought this resolution forward.
As was
pointed out by my colleague for the district of Flatrock, he didn't use this
language but subsistence farming has been part of our history for generations
and generations. From the beginning, people had to survive and they just didn't
survive on fish or survive on game; they also grew vegetables. No matter who you
talk to who can go back in their memory of growing up in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador they have strong memories of the subsistence farming that went on. And
we joke about ourselves being a rock and all that kind of thing, but this rock,
when it comes, for example, to our root vegetables, root vegetables love our
soil and they must love rocks too.
I have a
friend who is from India and her mother comes here to visit often. What does she
love? She loves our turnip. She said never has she ever tasted turnip like the
turnip that's grown in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we have a very particular
environment for growing and the environment, it's not just the soil, it's
everything that surrounds the soil as well. That's what you have to look at when
you're talking about farming.
So, yes,
I am glad that the government is talking about making more Crown lands available
for increasing agricultural production. It's extremely important and we know
that we have quite a bit of Crown land out there, and probably much more than we
realize that can be used for agriculture.
Working
towards food sufficiency is so important, as all of my colleagues have pointed
out here today. As the Minister for Fisheries and Land Resources has pointed
out, there are areas where you wonder why we aren't doing better. He used the
example of potatoes. Well, I know for myself there's not a potato cooked in my
house that comes from anywhere except this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
And with
all of our root vegetables. That's why it was bit disturbing this week to know
that Lester's Farm had the damage done to them that they had done, because they
have been doing so much to keep vegetables growing all year, which is what we
need.
I'm glad
government is aware of this that food security is so important, but there's more
to it than just having the land available. That's the first step that has to
happen. What is it? I think it's 89 per cent of our land in this province is
Crown land, so we really do have to make that step. While we want to use our
land for various things, walking trails for example, access to the coast is
really important, but making land available to aid our food security and to aid
the agricultural industry is major.
In
Estimates because I ask about this in Estimates in 2015, we were told that
25,000 acres are currently used for agriculture. Now it may have gone up a
little bit since 2015, but it wouldn't be much because we were also told in
Estimates that it goes up maybe about 1,000 acres a year. And I see the Member
for Labrador West writing, so he may have up-to-date figures on that.
The
bottom line is we were also told this was back in 2015 at that Estimates
that the target for food security in the province would be about 100,000 acres
under cultivation, and right now we have about 25,000-26,000. So we have a long
ways to go in order to get to food security. It can't happen without planning,
and neither can it happen, I don't believe, by only making Crown land available.
We're
talking about two things. We're talking about people who are already in the
industry and people who are already in the industry may have sometimes, maybe
not all the time, the resources to access land and then begin using it right
away. But if we're talking about trying to increase the numbers of farmers, and
especially getting younger people involved, I think government needs to look at
the start-up costs for farmers, and I think we have to become more involved when
it comes to start-up costs in order to get new entrants in.
Government had the wherewithal to put money into the cranberry industry, which
was great; continues to do it, I think. Governments in the past put a lot of
money into mink farming. I think a lot of money that may have been wasted. But
putting money into farming that's going to increase our ability to feed
ourselves, into increasing our level of food security, can never be seen as
money that shouldn't be spent. It is money that should be spent, and we do have
to help new entrants.
There
are good programs available, but a lot more is going to have to be done. I was
happy to hear the minister talk about the NL Young Farmers. We do have some
wonderful young farmers in the province, couples who are working together some
have been in the news recently, and I would encourage people I follow NL Young
Farmers on Twitter and I love seeing their tweets. I love seeing it because one
of things they're doing now, which I think is very important, they're sort of
profiling young farmers. I think it's every week or so they're putting out the
profile of another young farmer, or a young farming couple, a farming family and
I really love reading the tweets and reading up the profiles that are there.
So I'm
sure nearly everybody here in this House tweets and if you do, I encourage you
to follow NL Young Farmers because it will keep you up to date on what's
happening and also encourage us to understand how fruitful it is and that was
a pun unintended, but how fruitful it is to put money into the start-up and
getting young people into farming. I think it's extremely important.
We do
need to beef up our funding again, an unintended pun, but the first word that
came to my mouth and make more money available to help. As I said, we do have
some good programs, but it's not enough.
I get
encouraged when I read something like this, which came from one of our young
farmers, publicly I'm sure some of you heard it. Why does he like farming? I'm
my own boss. I'm outside every day and I get, to a certain extent, to dictate my
own hours. It's hard work but it's very rewarding.
I think
having public programs, information programs ads, for example even that in
itself would be a way that government could help; real publicity by government
of what goes on in our farming industry, publicity by government of young people
who are getting into farming.
I choose
to follow NL Young Farmers on Twitter. A lot of people in our province don't
know what Twitter is. They wouldn't know what to do to say oh, go follow NL
Young Farmers. So government, I think, has to do a lot of work in making sure
that people know how beneficial it is to promote our agricultural industry.
Now, I
know that the cranberry industry is very successful, and I'm very happy about
that. It certainly is an investment that has not been wasted. It's an investment
that is really yielding profits that are important for the people who are in the
industry. The development of cranberry production sites was estimated to cost in
the range of $30,000 to $35,000 per acre of land and take from three to five
years to reach a level of harvestable yields. Right now, they are reaching it;
they are getting there.
I look
forward to the day when they'll get into secondary processing because I think
that has to be the next step. Now, the thing about cranberry industry and I'm
not downplaying it; it's really important what's happened it's a cash crop.
It's a good cash crop because it's a food cash crop, a very healthy berry;
nevertheless, it is a cash crop. So we want to make sure that we're not just
making our investments in the area of cash crop necessary the canola is
necessary as well, but we want to make sure that we are putting investment into
the crops that need to be grown in order for use to have food security.
What
government has done with the decision around the Crown lands is good, it's a
first step. I'll be happy to vote for the resolution, sort of thanking or
congratulating government, recognizing the importance of what government has
done. I'll be happy to vote for that resolution, but there is more to be done.
One more
point I'd like to raise, which is slightly different from what I've been talking
about, is looking at our Crown lands from another perspective, and that is using
our Crown lands to protect our coastlines and our coastal trails. That we have
the ability to make sure we have a trail system that is one that is good for
people from the perspective of health, people being able to walk in the fresh
air around our coastlines is extremely important. It's also something which is
good for tourism. A lot of people come to our province exactly to do that, to
hike, whether it's in the parks or whether it's out in the non-park land. In the
Crown land area, I think we have a real opportunity to make sure that our
coastlines are protected and that our coastal trails are protected.
In 2011
the government had a framework, the Coastal and Ocean Management Strategy and
Policy Framework, and it spelled out the need for protection of coastal areas,
green spaces and trails. The strategy noted that there were important issues
related to coastal land use, including traditional access to coastal areas,
protection of green space and nature trails, protection of archaeological and
paleontological resources and limiting development in coastal buffer areas.
So there
are two issues here. I don't think the Crown lands that would be released for
agricultural purposes in any way would be land that would be causing problems
with regard to our coastlines and coastal trails, but I just encourage
government, as it is looking at land use, to also look at that broader land use
issue as they progress with programs around the use of Crown lands.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure and an honour as always to stand here in the House of Assembly and it's
especially a pleasure and honour to speak to this private Member's resolution
brought forward from my friend, the MHA from Lab West.
I
usually preface and say I was honoured to represent the people from the historic
District of Bonavista, which is true, but I have to say agriculture goes way,
way back in the District of Bonavista. It's one of the main revenue sources of
our economy within that area.
I have
to speak to something first before I get to meat, and I've got two or three
pages here so I'm hoping I'll get to it. I'm that passionate about agrifoods in
my district that I could speak for probably two days on it. But I take exception
to what the Member for CBS had to say here earlier. He gets up and says: oh,
you're bringing forward PMRs which you should be embarrassed about.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I'm not embarrassed to talk about this. On that side, they're the
crowd that brought forward a PMR on Muskrat Falls, and also the PMR on the FANL
fisheries fund, which they like to pontificate about these days where they
talked about all the money they brought in. They threw a party and no one turned
up.
So
getting back to that, then you had the Member for Cape St. Francis get up and
call this a scam a scam, Mr. Speaker. If I'm not mistaken, when we got up and
spoke about this in the fall, our Crown lands legislation, he was one of the
ones who stood up and voted for it. So how he could get up here today and call
this a scam is unbelievable.
He gets
up and reads page after page after page from their Blue Book from 2015. I'd say,
Mr. Speaker, those words were in vain. They had 12 years to do what they said
they were going to do and didn't do it. We've been here 15 months. We put
forward legislation to allow farmers to have better access to Crown land, and we
did it within a year. We get results. Get out their Blue Book and read from it.
I'd be ashamed to read from that.
I'm
getting a little off track here. The Way
Forward document commits to growing our food production to 20 per cent by
2022. We currently only produce 10 per cent of our own food, which currently
employs 5,000 to 6,000 people each year. With our
Way Forward, with the opportunities
we're having in our agriculture industry, that's going to hopefully double by
2022.
They
talk about diversification; this is a part of our diversification. We're going
to grow the industry by double by 2022. That's going to see big economic growth
in the agriculture industry within my district, Mr. Speaker.
I have
written down here about the history of the family garden. If you're from rural
Newfoundland, you always had a family garden. Going back to my parents days,
their parents days, going on down. It was in the MHA for Terra Nova, so it goes
back to his days, but it's part of our history. It's the way we had to grow our
food years ago.
We
couldn't go buy it at the grocery store. You had to grow it. You supplemented
your vegetables with your salt fish, your rabbit, whatever else you caught. So
if you didn't have a good harvest, if you didn't put an effort into farming in
summertime, then you starved in the winter.
That
gets back to our local gardens that we have now. Most of us I wouldn't say
most of us, but a few of us have our own little gardens that we tend to and I'm
the same. People who follow me on Facebook can see my success or lack thereof in
some things. The Member for Lewisporte Twillingate gave me a few pointers, but
I think the pointers he gave me actually stunted the growth, but that's neither
here nor there.
We're
seeing a prevalence of community gardens, Mr. Speaker, no matter where you go.
I'm working with a group in my hometown to see if we can get some funding to get
a community garden going there. What this group does as well, they go into
schools, teach about composting, teach about gardening, so that our young people
actually get out and do it themselves.
If you
talk about the District of Bonavista, you'd be remiss not to talk about the Town
of Elliston who's the root cellar capital of the world. So you look at Elliston,
and it's a pretty rocky, rugged, barren area but they grew their own vegetables,
stockpiled it in their root cellars, many of which are still active today, Mr.
Speaker.
In fact,
during the Bird Island Puffin Festival, on Saturday and Sunday they have a jiggs
dinner and most of the vegetables that are supplying that jiggs dinner actually
come from locally grown gardens. The vegetables were housed in root cellars
during that previous winter. I can tell you, if you can go to jiggs dinners
around the province, that's probably the best one you're going to go to. It's
fabulous.
We talk
about our food production and we talk about our history. We talk about our own
little gardens because we like to have a few meals of fresh vegetables in the
fall of the year. But how this PMR relates to our bill, our legislation on
better access to Crown lands, is it's going to increase our production.
Mr.
Speaker, there have been a number of farms throughout the District of Bonavista,
throughout the years both in the past and present. You look at Lethbridge,
Musgravetown, Bunyan's Cove, Morley's Siding, Canning's Cove, Bloomfield areas,
they've had a big, big impact on the agriculture industry in this province for
years and you still see those farms flourishing today.
You look
at other areas in the district. You look at heading up the Bonavista Peninsula;
you had a number of different farms in the Trinity Bight area. You have the Port
Rexton community livestock pasture. You have the Bonavista pasture which allows
for animals to graze in that area.
When you
talk about the farming industry, what you've seen over the years is an aging
group of farmers. What we've seen in the last few years in the District of
Bonavista on the Bonavista Peninsula is a number of different young farmers come
forward. You look at Krista and David Chatman who operate Three Mile Ridge Ranch
AN HON. MEMBER:
Great people.
MR. KING:
Wonderful people, young
people in their 30s who are growing vegetables. They're heavily involved in the
Newfoundland and Labrador Farming Association.
Actually, in fact, Krista is taking the lead on part of the farmers market in
Clarenville. They saw a need for the area. They wanted to get into farming, and
you know what? We're doing our best to help them get what they need so that they
can grow and solely focus on their farm, Mr. Speaker.
You look
at Luke Strong, who started out last year in Harcourt who started growing hay.
Now he's transitioning into dairy. He's only 20 years old, Mr. Speaker. So
that's the future of the farming industry.
You look
at Clint Keats, who just moved back from Alberta, who is going through the
process now to start a bison farm on the Bonavista Peninsula something that we
haven't seen before. So it's a new product that's coming into the province. I
know the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and his department is working
very closely with him to make sure things roll smoothly for him. Like anything
else, there are hiccups, but we're there to help him out.
Actually, in the week before last, I had a young couple, two electricians
actually from Labrador came to my office, Amanda Cull and Johnny Pike, and
they're looking at starting a greenhouse. They've got three greenhouses bought
in the Elliston area. Now they're looking at getting into the hydroponics and
actually using green energy so that they can use their greenhouses year round.
So those
are just four examples of young farmers in my district who are actively there
getting into the industry, and I'm certainly there to support them. I know the
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources is there to support them.
You
can't forget the farm stands as well and I forgot to mention this about Krista
and David of Three Mile Ridge Ranch who operate a vegetable stand as well more
than a vegetable stand; it's a country store, who my friend, the MHA for Terra
Nova, buys all his horse supplies from. They operate a vegetable stand right up
to Christmas. Last year, they got as far as the middle of October. This year,
they've seen an expansion; they got a little bit more.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't talk about Holloway's stand on Route 230 going down through
Lethbridge who, given their age right now, they just got out of it, but they
were there for years and you couldn't go by there in the fall of the year
without seeing at least five or six cars because that's where you'd go to get
your carrots and your turnips and your cabbage and whatnot.
Also in
the District of Bonavista and I have to speed up because my time's getting
really short and I said I could talk to two hours on this. I probably shouldn't
have given the Opposition the gears earlier on, but I figured they deserved it.
We have
award-winning producers in the dairy industry. We have Jeff and Olive Greening
of Sunrise Dairy on the Bunyan's Cove and Jeff Peddle of Riverbend Dairy in
Lethbridge who, year after year, are always in contention for the Dairy Farmers
of Newfoundland and Labrador Award of excellence. This year, they both won the
award. So it's great to have that representation in the district and see the
great quality product they're producing.
Mr.
Speaker, Growing Forward 2 has been an asset. I know it was brought in by the
previous government, so I'm going to give them kudos on that. But in the last
year, we've seen hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in farms in the
District of Bonavista which have helped modernized, helped farms expand. So
that's a great program that's being very well utilized. Under our government,
we're seeing better access and we're getting it rolled out a little bit quicker
than our first year, I understand this year.
Within
this document I have here, which is the reserved areas of interest for our
agriculture, so that gets back to our Crown lands access and our legislation
that we brought forward in November. Out of the 19 areas of interest, nine of
them are from the District of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker. So I'm excited. That's
going to be a big boom for our area.
I talked
briefly about the farmers' market in Clarenville, and I know my friend from the
District of Terra Nova has been very active with that. That's not just going to
help the Clarenville region; it's actually going to go right up to the top of
the peninsula in Bonavista, going to go west, you're probably going to get in as
far as Gander, even Grand Falls.
I was at
a local vender meeting two weeks ago and there was a jam-packed house at the
Holiday Inn. It was standing room only, Mr. Speaker. So that's the interest that
farmers' markets have in this day and age. Living in Halifax for 10 years, they
had to expand their farmers' market from the old Alexander Keith's brewery down
next to Pier 21. It was packed every weekend.
I just
saw good news as well, the cider production they're looking at in Milton now,
if it's anything close to the success that Port Rexton Brewery had, I'm sure
it's going to be huge. So I'm looking forward to getting a nice cold glass of
cider from the guys when they actually get up and running. In Milton, you have a
great area for growing apples. So that's going to be a different industry that
we have there. That's more diversification, Mr. Speaker.
One last
thing I want to touch on. I was going to touch on a couple other things, but one
other thing that I really want to speak to is the livestock production seminar
that we have at the College of the North Atlantic in Bonavista on April 20. It
runs from 8:30 in the morning, starting with registration, and goes to 4:30 in
the afternoon.
They
were supposed to have that in February but given our weather in Newfoundland and
Labrador, it had to be cancelled and rescheduled. It's on April 20. We may not
get the best weather there, but I'm hoping that it's going ahead and I'm looking
very much to attending that seminar. I was registered for it before and I'm glad
that it's part of our Easter break so I actually get to spend some time and
learn about the livestock industry here in this province and the potential that
we have in our province and in the District of Bonavista.
So with
that, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West has my full support in this PMR
and I know I'll be voting for it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me to rise again today on this PMR to close debate. I want to thank
all the Members who spoke on this today. I want to thank the Member for CBS for
supporting the resolution. It is unfortunate that you would use the opportunity
to really not talk about how great agriculture production is for the province.
Rather, he took the time to try to, I guess, rail on us as the Opposition for
the things we're not doing to support this industry. But in essence, Mr.
Speaker, we are doing a lot of good things for agriculture and this is just step
one.
He
acknowledges that it is a good move. Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate on that
but took the time to talk about Crown lands, other things and the negative part
of the whole issue. In fact, he went as far as calling it that he was
embarrassed; it's embarrassing that we're bringing this forward today.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not embarrassed to do what is right for this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
And this is a great industry
and has great potential for the future of this province.
I want
to congratulate my colleague, the Member for St. George's Humber. He brought a
great local perspective to this PMR today, for the simple reason that
agriculture is a huge part of his district. It is an industry in his district
that is thriving and has so much more potential to improve. We're looking to
that region of the province as one of greatest opportunities to grow the
agriculture industry.
We talk
about technology; he's talking about technology and robots milking cows and all
that good stuff. Well, this is the age to live in; it's the age of innovation
that we live in and it's good to see that is happening in his district.
The
Member for the beautiful District of Cape Francis, he got up and he supports the
resolution as well, but again, he took the time to really go down the same road
as the Member for CBS. Rather than talk about the good things of the industry,
he talked about all the good things that were in their 2015 Blue Book.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
All the things that they had,
12 years with $25 billion in their pockets to implement, but failed to do so.
Mr. Speaker, you can't support it and then in the same breath really turn
against it.
The
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, I'm proud today that the minister who
is now in charge of Crown lands had the opportunity and the wherewithal to
congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment for all the work
he did when Crown lands came under his jurisdiction, to get this initiative
through and to get this act through the House of Assembly so that Crown lands
could be allocated to agriculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
I echo that remark by the
way, because I think he put a lot of time and effort into it. I know it's too
late, but anyway.
It's
good to see the agriculture ministers from across Canada will be here in the
very near future, in St. John's, to talk about agriculture in this country, and
they recognize how important it is to this province. I want to also thank the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi who really, really saw her passion in
supporting this initiative, because it's great. I'm glad she recognizes, and put
the politics aside, and recognizes the impact and the benefits that agriculture
will bring to this province. I applaud you, the Member for St. John's East
Quidi Vidi.
She
asked a couple of questions and by the way, her joke that she mentioned at the
beginning of her remarks about the agriculture land and referring to Wabush,
Labrador West. Well, I would like to remind the Member, we have in this policy
that we're putting forward, there are 500 hectares of land
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. LETTO:
Five hundred hectares of land
designated in Labrador West for agriculture production. We do have a community
garden, and we've had it for years. So we can grow vegetables there.
She
asked a statistic as well about, how much did we have today? Well, the 64,000
hectares we're announcing is basically doubling, but one statistic is that in
Newfoundland and Labrador there are approximately 0.06 hectares of farmland per
capita, which compares to the national average of 1.19 hectares per capita. So
we're about half of the national average today. We want to improve on that, and
I think what we're announcing today, what we have announced with regard to Crown
lands and the movement in agriculture will go a long way to do that.
My
friend, the Member for Bonavista; I've always known that Bonavista was a good
place to grow things, and the Bonavista Peninsula, but I didn't realize there
was so much activity on that peninsula with regard to agriculture. He talked
about Elliston; he talked about Lethbridge, Milton and all those other places
that have so much potential and are doing things today, by the way. There's so
much agriculture going on in this province today that really very few people
realize the impact it's having.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to say in my closing remarks, that what this is doing today is
hopefully to improve our food security in this province. As I mentioned in my
opening remarks, food security is a very important matter. We're at the mercy of
many factors that work against us. We don't have the best growing climate in
Canada, we acknowledge that. Our climate is what it is, but we're learning to
work with it, and that's where innovation and new ways of farming are coming in.
I just
want to say for Labrador as well, that we're at the mercy as well. When you talk
about food security, I'll relate an incident in March 2015 when stores in
Southern Labrador, in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair ran out of
fresh milk and produce for two weeks two weeks because of ice conditions in
the Strait of Belle Isle.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a long way to go, but I just want to say this is a great PMR
today. I think it shows that we are trying to diversify the economy. We are
trying to do good things for this province and we see agriculture certainly as
an opportunity for us in the future, and hopefully we can get there.
I know
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi recognizes this is just step one.
That's exactly what it is. Allocating the land is step one. We know we have a
lot of work to do. Now that we've allocated the land we have to support the
industry, and that's what we'll do going forward. That's why The
Growing Forward 2 initiative is so
important. We have to support the industry. If we're going to allow land and
provide the resources then we have to support the industry and allow these
farmers and other people to develop the industry that we're trying to promote.
So, Mr.
Speaker, again, I want to thank everybody for their input today. I want to thank
everybody for their support, and I look forward to the vote that we're going to
have very shortly.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the vote?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
I
declare the motion carried.
This being Private Members' Day, the House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.