May 9, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 50
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we start today, I'd like to welcome a new page here today. Her name is Amber
Rideout. Amber has just completed a Bachelor of Arts with a major in French at
Memorial University. She is also our tour guide for this summer, and will be
assisting as a page this afternoon. And I may add she's from the beautiful and
scenic District of Lewisporte - Twillingate.
Welcome
Amber.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Ferryland, Burin - Grand
Bank, Placentia - St. Mary's and Mount Pearl North.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everything we do affects the world we live in. We do not have limitless
resources, and we have the power to destroy or create. We need to teach children
to create, care for and respect our world.
The
kindergarten and Grade 1 classes at Holy Cross School in Eastport learned ways
to take care of our Earth when they returned to class after Easter break. They
worked very hard to clean up garbage left behind by others who – I quote from
one of the students – don't take care of our Earth.
They
were not pleased with the mess left around the schoolhouse and trails and would
like to see that their efforts were not in vain.
These
kindergarten and Grade 1 students put on their gloves with garbage bags in hand
and set out to make a difference for their school and community. They spent the
day making the school grounds clean and a tidy place to both live in and play.
Small
changes can add up over time, so it's important that we look at the small
things. These students are to be congratulated for making a change.
Teach
them young. They are our future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize and congratulate Sullivan's Songhouse, who have been awarded
the Cultural Tourism Award for 2022, presented by Hospitality NL and
Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism.
The
award recognizes the offering of an advanced product and/or experience that
celebrates the inherent value of a community culture, heritage and lifestyle.
Mr. Sean
Sullivan owns and operates Sullivan's Songhouse in his hometown of Calvert on
the Southern Shore. Sean provides his guests with a two-hour musical getaway
with some good Irish-Newfoundland folk music, up close and personal in his
old-fashioned outport kitchen in Irish heart of Newfoundland.
Sean is
usually joined by a special guest musician at every session, where they will
serve up an authentic song session that is both engaging and entertaining.
Sean
brings with his memories and experience of growing up in a house where songs and
stories were a major part of his Irish-Newfoundland heritage.
Speaker,
I ask all Members in this House to join me in congratulating Sullivan's
Songhouse on their Cultural Tourism Award and wishing them much success in the
future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, the Burin Peninsula
and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost a true visionary, an
effective and innovative leader and a strong advocate for his community, Grand
Bank Deputy Mayor Clayton Welsh.
Clayton
passed away on Friday, April 29, surrounded by the love of his life, his wife
Marjorie and his daughters Cawley and Kelli.
Clayton
spent his working career as a recreation and sports consultant with the
provincial government. He was very involved in designing and promoting
recreation programs including involvement in the Canada Games.
Clayton
grew up in historic Grand Bank and was very active in soccer, hockey and golf.
As a mater of fact, Clayton was a founding member of the Grande Meadows Golf
Course. He served as mayor and deputy mayor for 20 years, a member of the
Schooner Regional Economic Development Board, a board member with the Community
Youth Network, a member of the joint towns and community councils on the Burin
Peninsula and many other volunteer organizations.
Clayton
was a friend to all who knew him. He will be remembered for his heart-warming
laugh, his love for his family and his kindness and sincerity.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in extending sincere condolences to his family.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Speaker, the Placentia Area
Historical Society was incorporated in 1972 and celebrated it's 50th birthday on
March 27. It took on the role to promote the study, knowledge and preservation
of the history of the Placentia area. Placentia's history goes back to the 16th
century with many nationalities including: Basque, French, English, Irish,
American and Canadian.
The
Historical Society's flagship in promoting this history has been the O'Reilly
House Museum, open seasonally and housing artifacts going back over 450 years.
The society recently acquired the former St. Luke's Anglican Church. Both the
former church and the O'Reilly House have heritage designation.
The new
activities this year for the society will be adapting the former church, now
known as the St. Luke's Cultural Heritage Centre, into a performance centre and
museum. Events being planned include the escape room game based on Placentia's
history and called Placentia Plunder, a speaker series and musical performances.
The
Placentia Area Historical Society has a membership of 28. This is Come Home Year
and the society looks forward to a very active year guided by its board of
directors. The present executive consists of President Tom O'Keefe,
Vice-President Anita O'Keefe, Secretary Winnie Barry and Treasurer Ann
Devereaux.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
L. STOYLES:
Speaker, I rise in this House
to acknowledge Mrs. Ida Leonard.
Mrs.
Leonard passed away on April 12 of this year at the age of 100. She was born in
Scotland. She joined the Royal Air Force during World War II where she met her
husband and moved to Newfoundland as a proud Scottish war bride. She moved to
the community of Shoal Harbour where she raised nine children.
This
Second World War veteran of the Royal Air Force lived an extraordinary life
filled with challenges and joy. She raised her children with fierce
determination and unconditional love.
Moving
to Shoal Harbour was a culture shock for Mrs. Leonard. In Scotland they had
running water and indoor toilet facilities; it was a modern life for the time.
In Shoal Harbour she adjusted to a different life, having to go outside to use
the outhouse, carry water, work hard in the vegetable gardens and keeping
animals.
Later in
her life she moved to Conception Bay South and then to Mount Pearl – God's
country. She was a proud and active member of her district legions and often
spoke of her life stories. She was laid to rest in the Field of Honour in Mount
Pleasant Cemetery.
I ask my
colleagues to join me in tribute to the life of Mrs. Ida Leonard.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish
to inform the House that an airlift of 166 Ukrainian refugees under the hand of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is on its way from Poland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr. Speaker, as atrocities of
war are inflicted on Ukraine by Russia, the people of this province are standing
up and standing tall. We stand with Ukraine.
The
world has been reminded of what is the true face of courage and resolve in
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As his nation fights for freedom, we
all do what we can to support and ease the burdens of Ukrainian families.
When the
crisis hit Ukraine, our province stepped up immediately with a
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution.
To our
knowledge, we are the first state actor in North America to organize a
humanitarian airlift of Ukrainians to our shores. Our understanding and our
place on the world stage is reflected in this deliberate act.
Of
course, none of this work would have been possible without the tireless
leadership of our good friend, the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth
and Skills – well done!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
What he and his department
continue to accomplish is incredible. Other provinces and indeed the federal
government are looking now to follow our example thanks to their tireless work.
I am
reminded, Mr. Speaker, of each and every time Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
stepped up to help, often in times of local or international crisis. Disasters
at sea, sending our own during the First World War when we could least afford
it, 9/11. When people are in need, Newfoundland and Labrador is there.
Mr.
Speaker, today, our long, staunch history of supporting people in times of
crisis, we are carrying on. I wish to thank this House for its continued support
for our collective efforts and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for
their incredible generosity that they have laid out during this time of crisis.
Much
work remains. Slava Ukraini.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I extend a warm welcome to the Ukrainian
refugees who are currently en route to our beautiful province. It is my hope
that these individuals and families who are fleeing from the atrocities and
horror of war will be met with a generous and encouraging community where they
can feel safe and supported.
I look
forward to getting to know them and listening to their stories. I can only
imagine the struggle, the fear and the emotional turmoil that this needless war
has inflicted upon the residents of Ukraine. While I welcome those who are en
route to our province, I continue to think of those who are still facing danger
and I hope for a resolution to the senseless invasion.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
I, too, thank the Premier for
an advance copy of his statement and congratulate the government on this
initiative.
We would
also like to welcome these new arrivals to our province and let's do our best to
make sure that this is the place where they want to stay and thrive. We,
therefore, call on government to redouble their efforts in immigrant retention,
invest in the necessary supports so that these new arrivals feel truly welcome
and supported, as they become part of our communities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge National Nursing Week and
to recognize the contributions of those in the nursing profession.
The theme of National Nursing Week 2022 is We Answer
The Call. This theme reflects the determination and dedication nurses continue
to show while rising to the occasion for their patients, the public and
colleagues alike.
Speaker, our government understands the impacts of the nursing shortage in our
province. It is an issue that is being seen across this country.
We continue to work collaboratively to increase the capacity in our educational
programs
by
increasing seats in the Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program by 25 per cent
and graduation numbers in the Practical Nursing Program by 40 per cent. As
well, we are working to strengthen
recruitment and retention strategies across Newfoundland and Labrador. While a
career in nursing is focused on caring for others, we appreciate the need to
care for our nurses by enhancing the quality of nursing work life.
The pandemic further brought to light the pressures that nurses and all health
care workers experience every day and showed the crucial role that nurses plays
in the community.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me as we once again thank nurses for
always rising to the occasion.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I am honoured to rise in the House today to commend the
hard-working, dedicated, courageous nursing staff of our province during
National Nursing Week.
This
year's
National Nursing Week theme is We Answer The Call and we, the Official
Opposition, cannot agree more. When COVID-19 struck, they answered the call. As
our hospitals are facing backlogs, they answer the call. When our seniors
require attention, they answer the call.
Speaker, we are privileged to be able to stand in this
hon. House and recognize our nursing staff because they answer the call. I
encourage the people of our province to say thank you. Thank you to all our
dedicated nursing staff for their tireless efforts today and every day.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
I Thank you minister for an
advance copy of his statement.
We also
take this opportunity to thank nurses for the extraordinary efforts they make to
give us the care that we need. It is time for this government to reciprocate. We
love our nurses, so show them the love. Ensure that nurses have all the supports
they need to do their jobs so that they are no longer pushed to their limits and
we stem the tide of burnout and resignations in the system.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
gas in this province is now approaching the $2.10 per litre mark.
Speaker,
is the Liberal government planning to continue providing excuses while seniors
and families suffer?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a national issue – in fact, it's an international issue, as we addressed in
Budget 2022. We're addressing that
with $142 million provided to the people of the province in a holistic approach.
As opposed to just tackling one specific issue, this is a holistic approach to
the cost of living, Mr. Speaker.
We
appreciate the anxiety that the rising fuel costs are causing with people and
families in particular, and businesses. This is an international problem sparked
of course by supply issues, largely driven by the externalities of the Russian
war in Ukraine, Mr. Speaker, and I can't control that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
applaud $142 million, but the people of this province are saying it's not enough
and it's not going in the right areas.
Speaker,
the Premier says this is a global problem, but I remind him that he has been
elected to help fix problems affecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why does
the Premier continue to force people to choose between groceries, gasoline and
medicine?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, of
course, recognize that this is a problem, but we don't control inflation, Mr.
Speaker, and it'd be wrong for any state – subnational – to think that they
could. That's how you lead to poor decision-making, which compounds the problem,
frankly.
What we
are doing is taking a holistic approach. I'm not saying that this is the last
set of measures; we'll see where all this goes in terms of a world stage. But we
believe that we have a holistic approach that has touched many people in this
province, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to look at other avenues. But to
think that we can control inflation is frankly wrong and really irresponsible
from the Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
But you
do control a fair bit of the taxation on gasoline and fuels. That does have an
impact on the cost of inflation in Newfoundland and Labrador particularly. It
costs more than $2 per litre of gasoline in this province right now. That's too
much. People simply can't afford this. Alberta has taken action; Ontario has
taken action.
Premier:
Why are other premiers taking action while you allow the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador to suffer?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we
have taken action: $142 million worth of action. We've also addressed the cost
of living, by the way, by controlling electricity rates with the rate mitigation
deal. All of that contributes to inflation locally, but again, we don't control
the externalities that are at play at the geopolitical tension on the world
stage. We are doing our bit within the restrictive fiscal envelope that we were
left with, because of – say it with me now, gentlemen and ladies – Muskrat
Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
we're hearing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly our
seniors and our most vulnerable, is that it's not hitting the mark. It's not
doing what it needs to do to help the people of this province.
Speaker,
it's not just driving we're talking about. The cost of increases are seen on the
grocery shelves. Sugar costs $3 a bag. Milk is now $2 a tin, shocking increases,
yet the Liberals continue to make excuses for why they can't help.
I ask
the Premier: While other provinces act on the cost of living, why are we pricing
seniors out of their next cup of tea?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Other
provinces are also struggling, Mr. Speaker, as are other countries. This is a
combination of push-pull dynamics within the inflation environment. We don't
control the global economic forces at play. There are a large number of
externalities, not the least of which is the war in Ukraine, which is impacting
not only the supply chain directly, but indirectly through the price of gas.
We don't
control that. What we are looking at is ways internally within our fiscal
restraint that we can responsibly look after, through a holistic approach, the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to look
for innovative ways, recognizing the challenges in front of us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
All
we're encouraging the Premier to do is use what he can control to help the
people of this province. What they've used right now isn't helping the people of
this province. That's what we're hearing from our constituents.
Speaker,
as we ready our province to receive tourism this summer, the provincial
government has made sure the cost of living for tourists gets a help by
eliminating the fees to enter provincial park sites.
I ask
the Premier: Will parking at hospitals around our province also be made free of
charge?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, what we've done is eliminated the fees for provincial historic sites
for the entire province. He said for people visiting, but it's also for
residents of the province. As the Premier has said and the Minister of Finance
has said, there were measures in our budget, and we realize the challenges that
are being created right now, but we will do what we can to help support and
rebuild the tourism and hospitality industry in this province. It was the one
that was most devastated.
The
Member opposite stood here on Thursday afternoon and talked about how important
the tourism industry and hospitality industry is to this province, Mr. Speaker,
and I thank him for that. We will continue to support that industry, as that
rebuilds too.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
And
there's nobody on this side of the House who doesn't' support the tourism
initiatives in this province, and we're very supportive of it. What we're
talking about here is if we're going to do something for the tourism industry,
when we have people suffering after six, eight or 10 hours in emergency, to come
out and still have to pay fees, that's the last thing on their mind, the last
thing they should have to face.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, all we're asking is
for the Premier to consider the hardships faced by the people living here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Food and fuel is getting more expensive by the day.
The last thing people need to see, when they head out of a hospital, is another
bill for parking.
Speaker,
when will the Premier take real action to help the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have
taken real action, and I'll reiterate, Mr. Speaker, $142 million directly to the
people of the province. We believe that this holistic approach touches a lot of
people –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
– in this province, Mr.
Speaker. It touches people who own homes, it touches people who own cars and it
touches people on low income, people who are on income assistance, Mr. Speaker.
We're touching a lot of lives with that, but we also recognize that we still
have fiscal challenges –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
We still have fiscal
challenges in this province, Mr. Speaker. We're still booking a $350-million
deficit, Mr. Speaker. We are interested in a holistic approach that contemplates
the future of the province not just –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
– short-term political
rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Premier,
I'd say, say it with me: Upper Churchill. That's how lame your excuse is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, the mayor of Baie
Verte has quit over frustration with treacherous roads and complete lack of
response from the minister's department. Speaker, the town has been told they
must upgrade infrastructure which is below the provincially owned road before
any repairs will be made.
Speaker,
why is the minister using pressure tactics to delay the needed repairs?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
using pressure tactics; I'm using responsible tactics. When I met with the mayor
a year ago, I asked him to provide a blueprint of the town's infrastructure
under the roads, because I did not want to invest taxpayers' dollars putting
pavement on the road when we know there may be a possibility that the
infrastructure needed replacing under.
That's
what I asked for; I haven't got a totality in terms of a blueprint of that.
Until I get that, we really can't have a serious conversation about what we will
invest in the Town of Baie Verte. But I will continue to work with the MHA that
represents the area very well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
minister needs to help this town; they need help. They're having trouble
financially; that's what the real crux of the problem is here, and he knows
that.
Speaker,
the Baie Verte Peninsula has two operating lines and health centres that are on
a constant diversion, which has increased traffic significantly. Residents are
actually driving on the wrong side of the road to avoid bad sections.
Why is
government ignoring these serious safety issues?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
exception to the fact of ignoring, because I drove the area with the MHA, the
deputy minister was with me, when the LaScie road was facing many challenging
conditions due to weather, because the freeze and the thaw was taking havoc on
their roads. Even the assistant deputy minister went up to get into the car with
the MHA to drive and see it first-hand.
There
are many challenges; there are many roads in the province that have challenges.
But we have to stay within our fiscal envelope as well and be responsible for
all taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the town submitted an estimate over a year ago and has not heard from the
minister. In the meantime, the former mayor wrote the Premier saying: The sheer
level of ignorance and lack of respect exhibited by the minister is
unexplainable and unacceptable.
Why is
the minister offering insult as opposed to help?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sometimes that Member goes to areas that don't need to go, as far as I am
concerned. Talking about ignorance, I am not being ignorant to the Town of Baie
Verte. We had an estimate that was presented last year in the department. It is
not an application. They didn't apply for anything. Until they do, I am willing
to work with the Town of Baie Verte.
This is
not about the mayor. This is not about the minister. This is about the Town of
Baie Verte and finding a way to help them out. I am trying to do that, along
with the MHA, and we, hopefully, will come to some kind of resolve but being
responsible always to the taxpayers' dollars of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
sure we all look forward to a quick resolution for the people in the Baie Verte
region so that that can be solved and they can take care of their roads, and I
am certainly looking forward to the improvements in my district.
Speaker,
I ask the Minister of Finance: How much money does the provincial government,
her Liberal government, collect on a litre of gas in terms of taxes?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
question.
It is a
very important question and I will give it on a global basis. The provincial gas
tax collects $141 million a year. That's the provincial gas tax. We have
provided $142 million in cost-of-living assurance to the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the minister keeps
telling us what she has done. In case she is not aware, they are collecting
approximately 43 cents a litre. That's how much the provincial government is
getting per litre in gas taxes right now in the Province of Newfoundland.
I ask
the minister: Do you believe that's fair to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who continue to struggle to make ends meet?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, the Member opposite
does understand that we do have a provincial gas tax that collects 14.5 cents
per litre – 14.5 cents a litre. I can hear him muttering under his breath across
the way. Please be respectful. I did not do that to him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Again, 14.5 cents. In
aggregate, that works out to be $141 million. I believe the Member opposite is
misinterpreting the carbon tax and the HST in saying that the province controls
those. As I have stated in this House, the HST is a harmonized tax with the
federal government.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I'm having a
challenge because the minister is refusing to be honest with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I asked her how much does the Liberal government
collect in taxes on a litre of gas. It is not just carbon tax and HST and
gasoline tax, and that roughs out to 43 cents a litre.
Can the
minister confirm that number? That's all I want.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, this is an hon.
House and we have a right to a respectful workplace. I ask the Member to
withdraw calling me dishonest in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
I take quite offence to that.
He asked
the question about how much is levied on a litre of fuel and, as I said, the
provincial gas tax is 14.5 cents. If he wishes to rephrase his question to ask
about carbon tax, I can certainly get him those numbers. Or if he wants to know
how much we get on the harmonized sales tax, I will certainly be happy to get
those numbers.
But I do
ask for a respectful workplace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I certainly take
back if the minister thinks I said she was dishonest, I have no problem taking
that back. That is not my point.
My point
is I would simply ask the minister to tell us, exactly, at the end of the day,
on a litre of gas, how much do you collect on carbon tax? How much do you
collect in HST? How much do you collect in gasoline tax? Maybe you can add those
numbers up and tell us what the amount is.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I
appreciate the withdrawal of that inflammatory comment by the Member opposite, I
really do, and I do appreciate a respectful workplace.
I will
say to the Member opposite, I'd be very happy to break down the carbon tax and
the HST on a per litre basis and provide it to him. I have provided him what the
provincial government levies on a litre of gas.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We'd
like a real answer rather than a pat answer that we get every single time that
we get an answer.
Speaker,
our office has heard from a number of landlords who are being forced to evict
tenants rather than keep renting where oil heat is provided. The cost of fuel is
so high that the heat savings from an empty apartment are greater than the money
taken in from rent.
Why is
the Liberal government contributing towards our housing crisis by pushing people
out on the street?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to respond to the Member.
Certainly, the government is not in the business of forcing anybody out on the
street. Within the ambit of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation,
we support our tenants through a heat subsidy and other landlords can do
otherwise if they so choose.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Well, they're looking for a
break on home heating rebate, and we haven't got that yet either. So hopefully
somebody can do something to help out the people of this province.
Speaker,
furnace oil has doubled in a year. People who rent properties with heat included
are talking a huge loss, which puts pressure on the landlord and tenant alike.
Why is
the government forcing landlords into bankruptcy and tenants out on the streets?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Again, Speaker, thank you for
the opportunity to respond.
Again,
the government is not forcing any landlord to evict anybody based on any
factors, whether its cost or other issues. We work with landlords, we have a
rent supplement, which we provide to many landlords to support our tenants
across the province, and we have not heard from any landlord suggesting what the
Member is putting forth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, all we're asking is
that you look at the taxes that are on gasoline in this province, and all those
prices have risen since the budget has come out. That's what the people are
looking for; they're looking for a break.
Speaker,
I talked to a landlord yesterday who just filled his own tank for $2,000. It's
costing landlords more and the tenants are feeling the pressure to stay away
from the thermostat.
I ask
the minister: Why is your government forcing tenants to choose between heat and
home?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
So as
part of the landlord tenant process, there are rules in place that protect
landlords and also protect tenants. There are rules around when landlords can
increase rates, and rules to ensure that tenants know the stability of their
rent. Anyone who's impacted is welcome to make an appeal to the Residential
Tenancies board. We have a tribunal, a quasi-judicial process that makes rulings
in favour according to the legislation.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Speaker, a farmer emailed our
caucus indicating his fertilizer costs has increased 100 per cent. The fuel bill
has increased 186 per cent, grain 109 per cent and herbicides up 101 per cent.
Speaker,
the dairy industry in our province is on the verge of collapse. Why is the
minister sitting back and letting our milk supply dry up?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to
smile, but I think we're a long ways from the milk supply of this province
drying up when we have one of the biggest dairy producers east of Montreal
that's on the West Coast of this province, who are exporting milk. So we're a
long ways from that drying up.
We do
realize that the price this year has gone up. There's no doubt about that.
Fertilizer has gone up, and not thanks to the war in the Ukraine, but because of
the war in Ukraine. They're the major supplier for that.
There
are some challenges no doubt, but we have a CAP program worth millions,
multi-millions of dollars that farmers avail of each year, so I encourage each
farmer to get out and get in an application for the CAP to help offset some of
their price. If they buy machinery, we can help them through the CAP program.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Speaker, this farmer called
it the scariest time in the farm's history. Instead of gearing up, they are
parking equipment and sending people home.
Given
our geographic isolation, is government allowing a food shortage this year?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
If we
are to meet our goals this year, we will exceed our 20 per cent in food
sustainability for this province in fruits and vegetables, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAGG:
We're already self-sufficient
in chicken, eggs and milk and we're looking to be more self-sufficient this year
in our fruits and vegetables, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Well, we're hearing from
farmers that they can't expand.
Speaker,
the farmer is now paying 85 per cent fuel surcharge on everything he brings in.
Here's a quote from the farmer: Animals are leaving the Island by the truckload
because people can't afford to feed them.
Speaker,
this is a desperate cry for help but the government has been silent. Why has
government not done anything to help this industry?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I would
encourage that farmer to phone me direct. No farmer has reached out to my office
to talk about any such instance in this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
So I would encourage that
farmer or the Member opposite to provide me the name and I will personally reach
out to that farmer, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Speaker, they've been crying
on the airwaves, on the news and on the open lines the last week or so.
Speaker,
the farmer goes on: Our little bit of food security we were building is now
being destroyed. Closed farms, less jobs, higher prices and more products being
imported.
This is
a stinging indictment of the failure of this government. Why has the minister
turned his back on the Newfoundland and Labrador farming industry?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quite
the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have not turned our back on the farm industry. We
have dedicated ourselves to be out in the field assisting wherever we can. We
have the facility in Wooddale in which we provide seed potatoes. We do crop
transplants for those farmers. They are getting 100 per cent success with the
trop – crop transplants. Sorry, trying to be a bit of a tongue twister and
racing against the time.
So,
again, no farmer has come to me. I'm not aware of any farmer coming to anybody
in my department. Whether it was on Open
Line or not, I would suggest they reach out to the people and reach out to
the farm agriculture reps in your area, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
interesting to hear the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture talk
about being self-sufficient in eggs and milk. That's because half of the
province can't afford them. That's why. It's the cost of living. That's the cost
of living and if anything is categorically wrong, it is that the prices of those
items have not gone down – have not gone down.
D. BRAGG:
Terrible.
P. DINN:
The minister says it is
terrible. I agree 100 per cent with the minister; it is terrible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. DINN:
Speaker, personal care homes
in our province last saw an increase in the subsidy in 2017. Costs have since
ballooned and revenues have been reduced, especially by slow-moving assessment
and placement process.
After
being ignored for years, when will personal care homes and seniors receive a
much-needed subsidy increase?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Opportunity to address a very important sector of our community supports:
personal care home operators. I have met with them and my staff continue to do
so on a regular basis. We have provided significant support, financially, and in
kind during COVID and we have met with them on their issues around subsidies.
We have
gone back to Deloitte who provided us with a report on subsidy rates.
Henceforth, realizing that they don't reflect the current changes in the cost of
living, I have told each of the sectors that have come to me from the personal
care home division and we're working with them as we get Deloitte's new numbers,
Speaker. We have heard them.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
great to hear them, but we need action because seniors can't wait – can't wait.
Speaker,
every day we hear from seniors and their families about delays in accessing
personal care homes. The process of admission to these homes is antiquated and
under-resourced while seniors suffer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
P. DINN:
You talk about respect in the
House. We've got the whole crowd over here talking while I am talking about
seniors – seniors – and they still babble on.
When
will government overhaul this obsolete, single-entry assessment system for a
more modern and efficient admission's process for seniors in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
single-entry system has actually been a recommendation of various groups
analyzing the personal care home sector. I am pleased to inform the House that
placements in three of the four health authorities are well above prepandemic
levels. Certainly, we have caught up on those issues.
Eastern
Health has been challenged and with the ending of the Good Neighbour Agreement,
Eastern Health are bringing in additional resources to process the backlog. It
is, however, a situation that is improving and we will work hard to make sure
that it is resolved completely.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, I recently spoke
to the executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society who expressed her
disappointment in the budget. They have been lobbying several Ministers of the
Crown since spring of 2021 for program funding in this budget; funding they
would use to support women and gender-diverse individuals who are involved in
the criminal justice system. Speaker, this organization is looking for funding
to help people heal and transform their lives.
I ask
either the Minister for Women and Gender Equality or the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety, why did she fail to secure funding for Elizabeth Fry in this
budget?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you for the question.
Of
course, we meet with all sorts of groups throughout the province and we do know
it's important that people not just end up in the justice system permanently;
they have to work their way out of it. And we are working with these individuals
and these groups to make sure that they can do that to the best of their ability
so that they become productive members of society, which is what we all want. We
don't want the vicious cycle of them returning back and forth through the
justice system.
One
thing that we've certainly spoken about a lot lately is the construction of a
new penitentiary in St. John's, to replace the 150-year-old penitentiary, which
will go a long way to achieving those goals that we have and we would much
appreciate if all the Members on the other side support the construction of that
facility here in this province.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, that doesn't
answer the question. The executive director of Elizabeth Fry said to me – quote
– In the beginning, conversation was open and hopeful. However, since January
2022, while there have been meetings taking place, they are often follow-ups to
previous meetings, adding little value. It seems to me that the minister is
meeting just for the sake of meeting, without any intention of helping this
organization help women.
So I ask
again: Where is the commitment to provide funding to Elizabeth Fry?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
And yes,
I have met with the executive director of Elizabeth Fry, and was happy to go
there on the opening of their new building here in St. John's as well. We will
continue to work with them and answer them when they have questions about issues
in the province.
But with
regard to the recent budget, there was no formal funding request from that
group, and we've certainly met with other groups in here that have received
funding from the Department of Justice and Public Safety, and wage as well, and
we'll continue to work with those groups to improve the livelihood of people in
the justice system in this province.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the Minister of Education has consistently assured us that the necessary
additional teaching resources have been put in schools where children of refugee
families will attend. Yet teachers in these schools tell me that they haven't
seen these resources and don't know what the minister is talking about.
I ask
the minister: How does he explain this blatant discrepancy between what he said
and what is actually reality?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
we have put additional resources in, based on the increased enrolment in our
schools, including the newcomers from Afghanistan. What's been identified by the
English School District as the requirements, Mr. Speaker, we have seen to in
this year's budget as well. We are voting on the budget in the very near days
and there will be additional resources based on the budget put into our K-to-12
system as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
As
Ottawa works toward a national pharmacare plan I ask the minister: Has he been
in talks with Ottawa about NL being the pilot project, as pharmacare was in
their 2021 election platform?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Certainly I have discussed with federal officials. Following, maybe, in PEI's
footsteps where they have such a program currently. We were very actively
engaged before. Quite frankly, it has been sidelined a little bit during the
current wave of Omicron, as staff were diverted to deal with that. But that is
one of the things on our agenda for our next FPT call. I look forward to
informing the House of what progress we have been able to make.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
In the
2021 election, the Premier came to Labrador West and campaigned on changing
MTAP.
I ask
the Premier: Was that just another campaign tactic, as Labradorians are waiting
to join the province in equal access to health care?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
Medical Transportation Assistance Program stacks up extremely well against other
jurisdictions. Indeed, it is the broadest in terms of the ability to get
coverage.
From the
point of view of changes, we have made significant changes to the policy, which
help people from the Big Land. We are certainly, internally, looking at how to
streamline this. Particularly in the light of Health Accord NL's comments around
access. We look forward to being able to bring something forward in due course.
Speaker,
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Speaker, last week the
minister responded to questions about access to abortion. The Athena centre is
based in St. John's and only travels once a month to Corner Brook and Central
Newfoundland, with no services available for Labrador.
I ask
the minister: Would this government put more funding into the Athena centre to
add Labrador to their monthly travel services?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Access
to abortion services has certainly been a topical conversation in the media this
weekend. It has been highlighted that if you live more than 150 kilometres from
the United States border, access is a challenge across Canada. We have
recognized this; we have changed the way that the Athena centre is funded to
take them away from an unpredictable and fee-for-service base but they are now
receiving steady and stable funding.
For the
benefit of the House, you do not need a referral to access Athena's services.
This can be done over the phone or virtually. They are the experts. They have
been our resources, and they will continue to serve the people of Labrador as
well as Newfoundland.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Still a lack of access,
Speaker.
The
executive director of Planned Parenthood has said that they've heard from
patients in rural areas who are unaware that the abortion pill is available.
I ask
the minister: Will the government put all information about accessing abortions
on their website where more people can access it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yes, I
think that was dealt with in another commentary by the director of the Athena
centre. Certainly, from our point of view, if this is a mater of awareness,
delighted to see what tools are available that we've currently not used.
Again,
for the benefit of the House and any of our viewers at home, you do not need a
referral. You simply need to pick up the telephone and call the number. They
provide a wraparound service with counselling, procedures where appropriate and
support afterwards.
It is an
excellent service, one I commend Ms. Ryan's dedicated decades of service to this
province. Certainly happy to look at communications.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Speaker, pursuant to the
motion of referral of April 7, 2022, and in accordance with Standing Order 72,
the Social Services Committee met on five occasions: April 8, 12, 13, to May 2
and 6, 2022.
The
Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and,
pursuant to Standing Order 75(2), have directed me to report that they have
passed without amendment the Estimates of the Department of Justice and Public
Safety; the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the Department of
Children, Seniors and Social Development; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation; the Department of Health and Community Services; and the Department
of Education, and recommend that the report be concurred in.
Speaker,
I'd also like to say of the 6½ years that I have been engaged in Estimates,
either chairing or as a Member; this was the most respectful time that we have
had Estimates. I want to thank all my colleagues for that.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further presenting reports by
standing and select committees?
The hon.
the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, pursuant to the
motion of referral of April 7, 2022, and in accordance with Standing Order 72,
the Government Services Committee met on three occasions: April 11, May 5 and 6,
2022.
The
Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and
pursuant to Standing Order 75(2), have directed me to report they have passed
without amendment the Estimates of Consolidated Funds Services; the Department
of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Transportation and
Infrastructure; the Public Procurement Agency; and the Department of Digital
Government and Service NL, and recommend that the report be concurred in.
SPEAKER:
Further presenting reports by
standing and select committee?
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Pursuant
to the motion of referral of April 7, 2022, and in accordance with Standing
Order 72, the Resource Committee met on five occasions: April 7, April 12, May
3, May 5 and May 9, 2022.
The
Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and pursuant to
Standing Order 75(2), have directed me to report that they have passed without
amendment the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology;
the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation; the Department of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture; the Department of Environment and Climate
Change; and the Department of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, and
recommend that the report be concurred in.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
presenting reports by standing and select committees?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
pleased to present this addendum to the first report of the Standing Orders
Committee in the 50th General Assembly. I thank the Members of the Committee for
their diligence and hard work, and I recommend this addendum to the House of
Assembly.
SPEAKER:
Any further?
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, I give notice that I
will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider a resolution respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon, Bill 60.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That this House
concur in the report of the Standing Orders Committee tabled on May 9, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That notwithstanding
Standing Order 63, that this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day
on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for
Routine Proceedings and to conduct Government Business, and if not adjourned
earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I will move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that
this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motions?
Answers
to Question for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
reference to a question that was asked earlier about wait times for personal
care home placements, I'm pleased to inform the House that since Eastern Health
staffed up to deal with the backlog, there are now only 29 individuals awaiting
placement at Eastern Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further answers to
questions for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Crown
Lands' enforcement of the provisions of the
Lands Act abolishing squatter's rights
against the Crown has created undue hardship for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who honestly and in good faith have occupied and developed their
lands.
Historical title in Newfoundland trace back centuries and people have developed
their land for generations based on informal title. There is significant
disconnect between the Crown Lands' position on private land claims and the
reality in communities throughout the province.
The
District of Bonavista is one of the oldest settled areas of the province and its
residents find themselves unable to sell or mortgage or develop their lands
because they cannot get clear title.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to make a legislative amendment to allow for a
mechanism to resolve existing private land claims on Crown land and revisit the
1976 legislation to abolish squatter's rights against the Crown.
The
district I serve, Speaker, Bonavista was settled in the 1500s. We had
prohibition against lands, ended sometime in the early 1800s by then the British
– us being a British colony. The House of Assembly didn't begin until 1832.
We've had land going back before the House of Assembly was established in
Bonavista.
If you
look at the Land Use Atlas now and you google, and you look at all of Bonavista,
much of Trinity, a significant part of CBS and Torbay, but focusing on the
District of Bonavista, they're all in blue. Because those are being quieted.
They don't own the land according to the Crown Lands.
What is
the problem that we have? We have people now through generations who are looking
at moving the property, or getting clear title, and the only obstacle for doing
so is Crown Lands.
What's
it doing to the residents of Newfoundland and those in Bonavista, Trinity and
Port Rexton? It's costing them thousands of dollars in court costs to have a
lawyer, and that's only those who can afford to do so.
It was a
suggestion in the previous government back in 2015 that they would change and
allow for squatter's rights for any 20-year period, not just 1956 to 1976, but
any 20-year period. We are out now, can't find anybody back or very difficult to
find somebody of sound mind that can verify land position back in the early
'50s, therefore it's practically impossible to settle land on the system we
have.
I look
forward to speaking more about it when time permits.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I,
again, present this petition from Labrador West for seniors on seniors' housing.
The petition is to increase it in support of seniors. The reasons for the
petition:
The need
for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is
steadily increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility
of needing to leave their homes in order to afford to live or receive adequate
care. Additional housing options, including assisted-living facilities, like
those found throughout the rest of the province for seniors, have become a
requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is currently not being met.
WHEREAS
the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in the homes which
they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth.
WHEREAS
the means for the increasing number of senior residents in Labrador West to age
happily in place are currently not available in the region.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador
West to age in place by providing affordable housing options for seniors and
assisted living care facilities for those requiring that care.
Once
again, I bring this petition because, once again, the seniors of Labrador West
continue to ask me to bring this petition, as they feel like they are not
getting the same adequate access to care as other regions of the province. It's
a growing community, but, at the same time, seniors are continuing to choose to
stay in the region. Many of these seniors, this is where they're from. Many of
them came there as small children with their parents and some of them were even
born there.
So we're
seeing a rise in seniors living there and we'll probably continue to see a rise
in seniors there as our population in Labrador West continues to actually grow
and change. With the current housing crisis in Labrador West, where you can't
even find anywhere to rent right now, is also applying pressure on seniors, too,
as they don't have any options to downsize. Many of them are widows living in
big four-bedroom houses that they can't sell because they have nowhere else to
move into something more appropriate. So this also creates challenges for
seniors on a fixed income.
We're
seeing a changing dynamic in the region and we really need to take a look and
address this going forward because seniors just want to live in peace and
dignity and be able to enjoy their life instead of having their needs not met.
You
know, these big multi-story houses is very hard on seniors, many of them with
mobility issues. I know one who actually chooses to live in their living room
because they just find it too hard to go upstairs sometimes.
So it's
getting a little out of hand here. We really need to see something addressed.
Part of the thing is, you know, home care – we don't have any access to adequate
home care in our region so that puts a lot of pressure on the system. But, also,
we don't have a personal care home like every other district in this province
actually has. So this is getting to be something that really needs to be looked
into immediately.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Local Service District of West Bay and the town of Lourdes have an agreement in
place for the extension of water services to West Bay. The water service does
meet the provincial standard and the communities agree in principle on extending
the water supply into West Bay pending funding.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to secure funding through the Department
of Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water for the
residents of West Bay.
Speaker,
one of the fundamental principles of the Health Accord has to do with the social
determinants of health. One of those social determinants of health is access to
clean drinking water. Right now, the people that live in the community of West
Bay do not have access to clean drinking water.
Their
challenges with small drilled wells that they have in their community, the water
tends to run out in the summertime. They are constantly forced to carry water in
buckets or to go get it from another source, while at the same time there is a
water system that was built in the town of Lourdes that was built as a regional
water system. It has the capacity and the ability to service the entire
community of West Bay.
So we
urge the government, again, to consider the funding application for the
community of Lourdes and West Bay to help them start the development of what
will be a continuation of a regional water system that already exists and extend
it into the community of West Bay.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
entrance to Sandy Point on the Trans-Canada Highway travelling east is a
dangerous intersection with many safety concerns.
Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase signage and construct a
left-hand turning lane on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Speaker,
this is still an ongoing issue in the district. I have had meetings with two
ministers. I have had discussion now with the third. He was going to look at the
area. I know the minister is familiar with this area.
The area
to Sandy Point is back towards the Bay d'Espoir Highway but they use the
intersection further up, eastward towards Jumpers Brook, turning left on that
lane, which there is no left turning lane and everyone uses that. You have about
200 people out in that area, so as they turn left, you have heavy trucks, you
have fast traffic sometimes barrelling down on them and they're concerned that
somebody is going to get seriously injured or even worse.
The
residents of Sandy Point would like to have the signage changed from back where
it was by the Bay d'Espoir intersection up towards the Jumpers Brook area so
there is lots of signage and even a left turning lane if we could.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
We, the
undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our
leaders to ensure that the residents of Northern Labrador community of Postville
have access to adequate health care.
The
community of Postville, Labrador, has only one Labrador-Grenfell Health nursing
position in the community of Postville at the single community-nursing clinic.
This means that there is only one clinic nurse physically present in the
community. This nurse does not have access to RCMP support services during a
medical emergency because the community does not have RCMP stationed in their
community.
The
community of Postville is isolated with no road access to the outside world. The
only means of year-round transportation is by aircraft. Often, inclement weather
prevents air services, including medevac, which is medical evacuation service,
from getting to Postville. Also, if the loan nurse becomes ill or inclement
weather prevents nursing relief from reaching the community of Postville, they
will be without a nurse.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that the community of Postville has adequate
nurse care in the form of two clinic nurses stationed in the community.
Now, it
is National Nursing Week, Speaker, we talk about the quality of health care but
also the quality of the life for the nurses is equally as important. A lot of
times there are call-outs after hours in the community of Postville. There is
only one nurse physically in the community. A lot of times nurses have to be
thinking if they're the one single nurse stationed in Postville, what are they
facing?
Luckily,
Postville is a very law-abiding community, which is probably why the province
gets away with actually having no RCMP officer present in the community. There
are no professional services available to that nurse in the form of having an
RCMP officer there. Emergencies are emergencies, right – no professional
supports. What about a mental health crisis? What about a huge accident where
there are multiple casualties?
The
point I would also like to make about the one single nurse and the lack of
resources and supports for that one single nurse is, really, we're impacted by
transportation. If we were connected by road access, the RCMP and the nurses in
adjacent communities could actually support that single nurse. But we're not
tied in by road access and we're actually hindered by inclement weather, bad
weather, no transportation access. So it's really important for us.
The
point I'm trying to make is that with this community of Postville, we are really
isolated. So we need to actually have two nurses in our community of Postville
and we also need to have regular RCMP presence. If the province is actually
going to treat Northern Labrador, especially the community of Postville –
SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 9, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Access To Information
And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015, Bill 59, and that said bill be now read a
first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to introduce Bill 59 and that
the said bill now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act
To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015,”
carried. (Bill 59)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015. (Bill 59)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Always
an honour to stand in this House. The Minister of Tourism alluded earlier that
he felt that, with questions, sometimes we're picking on tourism. Well, I'll say
between our tourism, our oil and gas, our fishery and all of the other
industries we have in this province, this party is 100 per cent behind him.
Because we ask questions doesn't mean we don't support him. It just means
sometimes questions have to be asked and sometimes the timing of funding is
suspect.
We're
living in a really troublesome time right now in this province, and it's really
imperative that we all open our eyes and see what's going on. To say that the
cost of living has affected everyone would be an understatement. Unfortunately,
it strikes hardest the people who can least protect themselves. If your income
doesn't increase, or your taxes don't decrease with the cost of living, the
effects are swift and ruthless.
So I'd
say imagine that you're on a fixed income or you're on government supports.
Imagine being a single mom or a single dad. Imagine being sick or having a sick
child or family member – and I'll do even better, now imagine that you live in
Newfoundland, where we have the highest rate of everything. Highest rate of
cancer, diabetes, obesity, seniors, poverty, mental health issues and
unemployment.
As I
said a few weeks ago, it's quite simple. As the cost of living is going up, our
chances of living are going down. And it's a really sad state when you think
about that. You know, when we sit in this House and we debate the budget, it's
not about debating the tools that government has; it's about debating the
choices that they've made. Everybody knows the fiscal situation of this
province, and we know that it's not great. But that doesn't mean we can't make
different choices.
Here's
the reality. Today in the House of Assembly, there was a simple question asked
about how much money the province collects in fuel tax. It wasn't about
provincial tax; it was about how much the province collects. The number is
somewhere around 42 cents. We have the ability to defer some of that. Now it's a
start. The Premier said this is all caused by global issues.
Well, we
have very important issues that are happening right here in this province that
we can help change. The global issues will always be out there; the cost of oil
is affected by the dollar, it's affected by geopolitical issues with war and
other things, the Middle East. We all understand that. Anything from shale gas
in the States to fracking to supply and demand, global issues are always going
to be a part of what we do and see here.
But the
reality is we have to start focusing more on our provincial issues. And a great
example, as the Health Minister said today when asked a question about MTAP, he
said: Our MTAP program is equal or better than almost everywhere in the country.
And you know what? Perhaps it is. But here's what he didn't say: Our ability to
transport people and our transportation infrastructure is worse than everybody
in the country.
So
they're not comparable. You cannot compare those two things and expect to give
the people who need the answers the answers that they require. You can't expect
a patient to fly from Labrador to St. John's and have an appointment cancelled.
No more can you understand getting sick in Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls,
Clarenville, St. John's costs the same as it does getting sick in Bonavista,
Burin, Goose Bay – entirely different world.
Those
are the things that we don't do as government. We don't look at the – to quote
the Premier and his key phrase – holistic. Well, perhaps he should start looking
at the province in a holistic way, because the reality of this province, and the
reality of the world we live in, is that all things are not equal.
Today,
big announcement on busing in Metro – great announcement, much needed. There's
no question, but it forgets about rural Newfoundland. And guess what? When the
minister sits and talks about tourism or the minister sits and talks about
fisheries, rural Newfoundland, 100 per cent, they generate lots of revenue.
Labrador West, Tacora, IOC, lots of revenue. Goose Bay, lots of revenue. Baie
Verte Peninsula, two new mines, lots of revenue. Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans,
lots of revenue.
There
are lots of things to be excited about, but what we need to understand is we can
quell our excitement to look after what's happening today. What's happening
today is people are hungry, people are afraid and people are choosing between
heat – actually, they're choosing between heat and food, and it's really a
shocking thing.
The
Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture said today that he was unaware –
unaware – of questions that were asked by my colleague from Exploits. I can tell
you what, on May 4 he got a letter; the same letter that we got that outlined
everything in those questions. Him and the Premier got the letter, and he sat
here today and said he had no idea what we were talking about. That letter went
to him and the Premier. They both had it, but they don't know anything about it.
So either they're not listening or they're not reading their emails. There's
something going on, because we got it and they got it. But they say it doesn't
exist. There is the problem.
We've
got lots of opportunities in this House to make the right choices for people.
One of those choices is as simple as deferring the sugar tax this coming fall.
Doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a lot to very low-income people I can
guarantee you that.
Another
way we can do it is to reintroduce the home heating rebate. Government says it's
still there. Well, maybe perhaps a portion of it still is, but it doesn't go far
enough. People need more – people need more. A line of questioning in this House
today that talked about landlords evicting people so they can raise the cost of
rent to include what is happening with their heating costs is very real. I've
heard it in my district, as have many other people on this side of the House,
and I'm certain that they've heard it on that side of the House too. But guess
what? Once again, they're not listening. What a shock.
At the
end of the day, it's all about choices. Now, we can go back in time and we can
quote Muskrat Falls, and we can quote all of the things, but when this
government came in in 2015 and introduced 300 new fees or taxes, they knew the
economic state we were in. They knew it in '15. They made all kinds of promises,
and here we are still in an economic state that predated COVID, that they knew
was there because of Muskrat Falls and nothing has changed. As a matter of fact,
I'll even go as far as to say from '15 to 2019 we were bullish on
Advance 2030 and now that's gone out
the window. We have one project, which I'm very happy to see, Bay du Nord. It's
wonderful but I suspect that this government has traded off the rest of them,
which is sad. It could be our future.
The
former minister, the current Minister of Finance, touted the 600 Hebrons,
Hibernias and oil finds that she was going to progress and bring to light. None
of them happened and here we are in a mess. We're in a mess make no mistake
about it. So when we talk about our sectors and we talk about our potential, you
talk about our mining industry, it's spectacular what is happening in the mining
industry. I applaud the minister for what is happening in the mining industry.
It's exciting. It's a glimpse of what could happen tomorrow, but we have to get
electricity for that first. We have to get electricity, because these mines are
not going to operate on windmills or solar power. They need electricity and it
has got to come from somewhere. That means these guys have to bring Muskrat
Falls over the line, something that they haven't been able to do in seven years.
So here we are.
Mr.
Speaker, when I talk to seniors – and I raised the question last week but I will
say it again: between our seniors and our truck drivers, professional people who
need medicals, even our pilots, they can't get a family doctor. So imagine being
a senior who needs to have a medical on an annual basis or a professional
long-haul driver or a pilot or a ship's captain or any of these positions that
require annual medicals and not being able to get it done. Actually, on the edge
of losing your job or losing your ability to drive and your freedom because you
cannot access health care to get a medical. That is where we have come. That is
the reality of where we are today. That's not a one off-call, that's a call that
people get on a daily basis and it is a shocking state.
Then we
get call 811 or call – it just doesn't happen. People aren't getting in. These
collaborative clinics, people are being turned away. I raised concerns last week
about a gentleman from Charlottetown. It's pretty funny, I raised it here in the
House of Assembly and the next morning he got a phone call and he could get in
to the new collaborative clinic that is going to open up in Clarenville. So he
said that is amazing. Can you tell me when it is going to open? No idea.
Couldn't even project it. They couldn't ballpark it, but you can get in when it
does open.
How is
that a solution? How is that going to fix the problems that we have in our
health care system? I can tell you it's not. We are hearing from doctors that
are concerned. We are hearing from the NLMA. We are hearing from the Nurses'
Union. We are hearing from all of these people.
The
Minister of Transportation stood up here in the House last week and he talked
about fear mongering. I'm not fear mongering; I'm simply stating the facts. I
can tell you right now, when I've got a senior or a mom or a dad with a sick
child, or when I've got a Member in my own caucus or someone in this House who
can't access the health care they need because they're ill, that's not fear
mongering, that's stating the facts. The fact is it's unacceptable and there's
no solution. There is no solution. The reality of that fact is that this
minister has had seven years to address it.
Now, if
he never stood in this House and said that he knew the issue seven years ago, I
may give him a pass, but if he didn't know them six years ago, that's
unacceptable. If he didn't know them five years ago, now we're really going down
the wrong path, aren't we? I don't need to carry on with four, three, two or
one, because this situation has been in place for a long time. He could have
changed it. He could have fixed it. He could have done something. When the
Premier came on board he knew the solution by his own admission. He ran almost
solely based on our health care system and the state we're in. And instead of
fixing the problem, he reappointed the same minister into the same position.
Here we are two years later in a bigger mess. It's gotten worse.
I'm not
going to say that COVID hasn't had something to do with that because we're not
silly in this House, we know COVID has played a role. But the problems existed
pre-COVID, much the same as our financial issues. In March of 2020 when the
previous premier wrote the letter to the prime minister and said that we have
these existing problems and we're on the brink of bankruptcy – Snowmageddon did
not cause that, COVID did not cause that. It was all pre-.
Now, let
me put something else into perspective. That was one year away from this
government's promise of balanced books. They promised to have the books balanced
by 2021. In 2020 they wrote a letter to the prime minister of this country – I
guess if the federal Liberals are their cousins we'll call Mr. Trudeau their
uncle. They wrote a letter to their uncle and said we're on the verge of
bankruptcy12 months prior to their promise of having the books balanced. What
does that tell you? It tells you we're nowhere close. Now the promise is
'25-'26. Guess what? Pretty skeptical, I have no faith in that. Not one little
bit.
The
people in this province right now are struggling with absolutely everything –
everything. Now we talk about our ability to supply food, we talk about our
ability to employ people, we talk about our robust fishery and mining industry
and tourism and it's all good. It's all key to how we move things forward
there's no question. When we stand here and we question things like the
investment in NASCAR, it's not because we don't believe in tourism or NASCAR. I
believe that will be an economic driver, no different than in my region; I have
White Hills. I know what $100,000 means. It probably means a $500,000 return.
We're
not stunned to any of that, but it's about timing. It's about the timing of the
Premier going to Ireland. It's about the timing of the Premier going to Ottawa.
It's about the timing of the Premier putting an office in Grand Falls-Windsor.
When people are starving, when people can't afford to put fuel in their vehicles
and drive to a doctor's appointment, we're spending money that we don't have to
spend. And the reality of it is that boils down to choices.
So it's
not about questioning government and their budget, it's about questioning some
of the choices that they didn't make in this budget. The reality of it is this
budget doesn't go far enough to help the people that need help the most. It does
not go close to far enough. People are not buying electric cars; people are not
switching their homes. One hundred and forty people, I believe, applied to
switch their homes from oil to electric. Guess what? Not going to cut it.
Then you
take into consideration that if they switch from oil to electric and they decide
to put a heat pump in, they've got to have a secondary source of heat. I know
one Member in our caucus quoted this morning, the Member for Stephenville – he
had a constituent get a quote. Oddly enough, I had a constituent bring a quote
to me and both within $2000 of each other. So between $18,000 and $20,000 to do
the conversion. Government's offering $5,000, when people can't afford to put
beans on the table. So they're going to come up with another $15,000, when they
can't afford to buy a can of beans.
I got
people calling me who said: Mr. Parrott, we used to bring grocery bags to the
food bank, full. Now, we're going there with empty grocery bags, hoping to bring
them home full. Imagine, we have food banks reaching out that are out of food,
that don't have the supplies to help people. Now, that's not fear mongering.
That's stating the facts. Don't take my word, call any food bank in Newfoundland
and they'll tell you the same thing. They're hurting. Every one of them.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Yeah and the people that are
going there, like I said, are the people that used to supply the food banks.
It's a scary fact of life and the reality of it is that every single person now
– and you want to talk about what we can do as a province? Well, the first thing
is we got to get our supply chain figured out 100 per cent. Because our supply
chain – we take our goods, our produce and ship it across the island twice.
We're paying double for no good reason. The reality of it is we're not looking
at the logistics of getting things here, and there are options, there's no
question.
You talk
to any trucking company in Newfoundland and Labrador and ask them one question:
Would they rather have their trucks full of freight land in Argentia or Port aux
Basques? I can guarantee you almost all of them, I would say overwhelmingly,
would say Argentia because they don't want to drive 800 kilometres across the
Island.
Mr.
Speaker, before I came in here today I got an email from a gentleman who just
moved back from Alberta – moved to Random Island, 6,467 kilometres; him, his
wife and his children drove with a big trailer in tow right across the country.
When he got to Random Island he said he was shocked. He drove across the entire
province and he said by far the very worst stretch of road that he hit was from
the causeway on Random Island to where he was staying at his parent's house.
But that
is not his story; his story gets a little different. He came here with hope and
promise of moving back to a province the he loved, the same reason I came back
here and the same reason that most of us live here, because we love this
province. Newfoundland and Labrador is endearing to every single person in this
House, I have no question. But the reality of it is, is that it makes some of us
mad sometimes. It kicks some of us sometimes, but that doesn't stop our love for
it.
So he
came back and he tried to get a doctor. He tried to get a doctor from Gander to
St. John's and everywhere in between and he can't get a doctor. He needs a
doctor, his family needs a doctor; we won't get into that, but they need a
doctor.
This is
a gentleman who was just about to build a $500,000 home on Random Island. He was
going to build a $500,000 home on Random Island, just moved back from Alberta
with his wife and children. She is from Alberta, for the record, and now he is
talking about going back to Alberta. He had one sentence which rang clear with
me and it says it all. He said: Me, invest in Newfoundland; when Newfoundland
invests in my family, I'll come back. Until that time, you won't see me.
Now that
makes a lot of sense to me. When you have people trying to come here, much the
same as our Ukrainian friends that I welcomed today, anyone who wants to move to
Newfoundland, they come here and they don't know what they got or what they have
in front of them. We all need health care on some level, every one of us.
When
they move back here and they can't get the care, not only that they deserve but,
in a lot of cases, that they need. Why would they stay when they can go to other
provinces, live the same life, have a cost of living that is much lower, have
access to health care – not better, we're got a fine group of doctors and nurses
in this province, I guarantee you. We've got some of the best health care
professionals in the world; there's no question about it.
But ask
them if they are overworked, the answer will be yes. Ask them if they are
overburdened, the answer will be yes. Ask them if they're stressed, the answer
will be yes. Every one of them. Every single one of them is at a point where
they are ready to break, yet we don't make the right choices.
Now the
Health Accord, I have no question that the Health Accord is going to help this
province, but it's a 10-year plan. We need a plan for today and we don't have
it. The saddest part about the plan that we need for today is the Minister of
Health had seven years to come up with and fix it – seven years. If any other
person for any other company or job did the same, they would not be in the
position I can guarantee you. I can guarantee you they would not be there. It
makes absolutely no sense.
So here
we are seven years later, in the midst of a crisis, that was going on pre-COVID
and here we are. Same spot, spinning our wheels, hoping that it's going to fix
itself.
Listen,
if you want any faith whatsoever that the government is going to listen to the
Health Accord, listen to one of the first sentences in the Health Accord when
they say: the social determinants of health weigh 60 per cent on health
outcomes. Then think of this budget and what it has done for low-income people
and the cost of living in this province. The biggest portion of the Health
Accord is being ignored all ready, think about that. That speaks volumes. So
what hope does that leave for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Very little.
I urge
the Premier, with all of my heart, when he's looking at a holistic approach,
understand that St. John's isn't rural Newfoundland, that the Avalon isn't rural
Newfoundland, and there are two different levels of care.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to stand and have a few words in the main motion. But before I do, Mr.
Speaker, and I know there's a bit of controversy lately about me, about some
things going on. I understand that, because I stand on principle; always have,
always will.
But I
just have to read something into the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think
The Joyce Report of October 18 is
where a lot of this started about me trying – trying, which never happened, no
foundation to it – to encourage somebody – I ask the Minister of Energy to
listen to this because it would be very important to him – trying to expose
someone or put someone in a position. I just have to read something that someone
sent me from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I'll read it, Mr. Speaker,
because it develops the budget, about hiring and all that.
Here it
comes from a staff member: Because of the importance of filling the position –
this was a senior position, a manager in Western Newfoundland for Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing in Service NL – with the best candidate available, we're
conducting the competition for the Western regional director within the two-tier
interview process for both internal and external applicants. The first two
rounds of interviews involved the panel meeting the applicants over a period of
time, over an hour or so to try to get the sense of who they are and assess
their communication and interpersonal skills to determine how they might fit as
the leader of the Western regional hospital.
The
second round of interviews would dig more into the applicant's training
experience, competency related to the actual work. The first round of
interviews, which included six interviews via video conference and two
in-persons, were conducted July 18-20, resulted in three of the external
applicants, including a screening out – they blanked that out. The remaining
five applicants will be moved on to the second round of interviews with two
internal.
So this
was a management position in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. And here is it, buddy's
name, I won't say his name, but it's here on the record that they sent me: As
minister, I am not satisfied with the process. Have you personally reviewed the
résumés of the final candidates? Can you forward the advertisement for the
position to me? As we discussed, I want the final interview process to be
completed by two individuals external to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and
our executive HR personnel. We need to discuss this.
This is
very important, Mr. Speaker, because November I almost got crucified in this
House. This is very important for a false statement. Also, the top three
candidates and reasoning for ranking are to come to you, as the CEO, and myself
for the final decision. Thank you, Sherry Gambin-Walsh.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the Member –
E. JOYCE:
Oh, I'm sorry, because I'm
just reading what's here. Sorry about that, okay, sorry about that – the
minister.
So here
we are, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put it in the House so everybody would
just know what was put in the report that I apparently did, which wasn't even up
at the time, which information showed it wasn't even up. But here's the minister
of the Crown, the same one saying you should never get involved with the
process, here she is demanding that the names come to her for the final
decision. That was the minister at the time –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
This
issue has all been dealt with in the House of Assembly and ruled on.
E. JOYCE:
I'm just reading about
hiring, how we should hire people.
SPEAKER:
That has nothing to do with
the budget. We're in the budget debate right now, so ask the Member to be
relevant.
E. JOYCE:
Oh, that's right; you were
parliamentary assistant to her, that's right. Were you parliamentary assistant?
That's right.
SPEAKER:
Are you questioning the
Chair?
E. JOYCE:
No, I'm just asking if you
knew about it.
SPEAKER:
The decision has been made.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I'm going to get on with
other things now, Mr. Speaker, and talk about some of the stuff that's happening
in this House, especially around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of
the things that's been brought up on many occasions is health care, and we're
talking about nurses. I just want to tell you a little story.
We just
had a recruiting class, about 100 nurses in the province. There were people
looking for full-time work. They contacted me because they were wondering, so I
wrote Eastern Health.
Eastern
Health got back and said, yes, we'll get someone to contact them. Do you know
what this person was told? We don't need your services at this time. That
person, plus two others who just right now graduated, went and moved to the
hospital in Nova Scotia. They found out last Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday that
they weren't going to be hired full-time, they put an application into the
hospital in Halifax and they just got hired. Three of them moved yesterday and
started work today.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nurses.
E. JOYCE:
Three nurses just graduated.
So when you hear of questions about, well, we've got a lot of vacancies here,
that's one example that I just dealt with myself last week, trying to get nurses
just graduated hired here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to read a part of an email that I got from a constituent. I'm
going to read a part of this email and it's touching. It's touching because what
do you say to these people? Hopefully I can find it now in a second. What do you
say to these people? I want to read it and put it on the record, because I stood
in this House and talked about nurse practitioners. I just want to read what
email these two seniors sent me:
Hi
Eddie, don't like bothering you but I'm so upset. Blank and I are without a
family doctor. Both our wonderful doctors retired in November. I will soon need
my prescriptions renewed; I called 811 and a nurse was very nice but told me she
could not help me with the information I wanted. She said if I called 811 a
nurse practitioner could refill my prescriptions.
I always
get blood work done before my doctor will review my meds. She wanted to keep
check on my kidney functions. Anyway, she told me that they can't order blood
work and I should go to a nurse practitioner clinic. That would be great but why
a senior on OAS has to pay for medical care if they can't find a doctor? Isn't
MCP supposed to be for everyone? I heard the Minister of Health and Community
Services on the radio show talking about the collaborative care clinics and how
could you register me online to get a clinic. Good for St. John's. According to
a nurse I was talking to, there's no collaborative care in Corner Brook. If you
get a chance to speak to someone in the Department of Health, would you please
try to get some answers for me? Sorry, Eddie, for being long-winded but I am so
upset about this.
So here
are two senior citizens on the West Coast have to pay to go see a nurse
practitioner and the minister says that he's in negotiations with the Nurses'
Union. Two seniors now, frightened they might not get their meds and frightened
that they might just renew it without the blood work – without doing the test. I
asked the minister that on several occasions over negotiating with the Nurses'
Union. He won't meet with the Nurse Practitioner Association, but here they are
two seniors on the West Coast. That's just two, there are many more. There are
many more here in this province, especially in Western Newfoundland, that can
use these services, but have to pay a fee to go see a nurse practitioner. Can
you believe that?
Here you
are trying to ask the minister – here's a way to help out on it and, Mr.
Speaker, they just won't budge. Everything is fine in health care. They have the
plan. Everything is just fine. Relax. Tell that to the thousands of people in
Western Newfoundland who don't have a doctor. Go out and tell them. Go tell
these two seniors. I ask the minister to call; I'll give you their numbers. I
know them personally. Call these two seniors and tell them everything is fine.
How can we not?
I heard
the Premier on many occasions: We have to think outside of the box. We have to
think what worked before and didn't work. Wouldn't putting nurse practitioners
and be able to invoice MCP – wouldn't that be a great idea? Wouldn't that be a
great idea so that we can expand these types of services for the people who
don't have doctors?
I know
two people who have two years left, I think, before their residency; I think it
is two, maybe a year and a half. One is going to be a psychiatrist and another
one is going to be ear, throat and nose. They're engaged. They, in six years,
have yet to be contacted for recruitment in Newfoundland and Labrador. They
actually called one health authority and they said we'll get back to you. Never
got back to them. Two, 26, 27 years old. Those are the kinds of things that
frustrate people because they know these people on the West Coast. Here are two
young professionals want to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, want to work
in the Western region, yet they haven't been contacted. It is shameful.
So if
the Minister of Health is listening attentively, there are ways that we can help
out a lot of seniors. Here are two, an example. I have a long list, Mr. Speaker,
of people who are looking for doctors, who can't get doctors. So what do you do?
You explain to me what to do, because I'm out of answers bringing up to this
government about options; options that can help people, options that people are
willing to help.
When I
spoke last week about the nurse practitioners, they had over 4,000 visits then.
Four thousand people in Western Newfoundland who had to pay a fee to see those
people to get a prescription done, or to go and get some blood work, or may have
needed a medical certificate for their driver's licence. Four thousand that they
had to pay. We have an easy solution here. We have a very, very easy solution
here, Mr. Speaker, yet we can't get the government to move on it one bit.
I have
to speak on the cataract surgery in Western Newfoundland again. I have to speak
on that, Mr. Speaker. When you talk about the cataract surgery in Western
Newfoundland and I heard – the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands is here also.
As he was saying, there's a lady here who's a caregiver for her husband. Needs
her eyesight, a caregiver –
P. LANE:
He got cancer.
E. JOYCE:
He got cancer and now she has
to pay over $6,000.
P. LANE:
Thirty-two hundred dollars
per eye.
E. JOYCE:
Thirty-two hundred dollars
per eye because the quota is up. There's something wrong. That's here also.
There is something fundamentally wrong. There's space there. There's capacity
there. Everything is fine to do it, but it's just the will.
I know
in Western Newfoundland, I know the minister wrote me there about two weeks ago,
three weeks ago about the information about how much it costs to pay for the
supplies, and then pay for it when it's done at a private clinic. The private
clinic itself comes up, I think it's $960, $945, something like that – I don't
have it in front of me.
The
minister and the cost at a provincial authority, Western Health, say for
example, or the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville, it's over $1,200.
The minister writes me, puts in a letter, no, no, no, the facts that we have
it's only $500-and-something. The part that the minister is not bringing up,
that's one eye, but most people get two eyes done. When you add two of them
together, it is the cost for the surgeries at the regional authorities.
It just
amazes me why this government – I don't know if it is personalities or what.
That is something the minister has to decide himself or the Premier, because the
Premier is well aware of it. I just don't know, Mr. Speaker, if it is just
personalities. For the minister to say that it is only $500-and-something to get
it done, it is not; it is usually two eyes. That is what the Grant Thornton
report came back and said, both eyes, over $1,200. It is cheaper when you do it
at the Apex building; it is $900-and-something, 23 per cent cheaper – 23 per
cent cheaper to do it.
The
capacity is there; they can do it. But because of a quota and because we won't
even allow them to do it there – it is not going to cost any extra money because
if you found some surgical time at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital, you
could go get it done. There is no problem to get it done at the Western Memorial
Regional Hospital if there was surgical time. They can't do it as efficient, Mr.
Speaker, because the time is just not there with the backlog of surgeries and
other things. If you could and you give them five days a week for the next two
or three months, you could end up having them done, but there is no surgical
time, as I said..
So if
they allow them to do it at Apex building, they want to do it in the nighttime
and weekends, within three to four months, there would be no backlog and it
doesn't cost the province any money. It doesn't cost the province any additional
money; it will save funds.
So why
that is not done when the Premier of this province stands up here and says,
okay, we're going to look outside the box. What a way to look outside the box.
Say to the three specialists at the Apex building, okay, what we're going to do
now is we're going to allow you to go ahead and get the surgeries done. Charge a
cheaper price than it would be at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital. Charge
the MCP the same amount as you would if you did it at the hospital and there
wouldn't be people waiting another year and 14, 16, 18 months to get their eyes
done. I'm not sure how long this person –
P. LANE:
A year and a half.
E. JOYCE:
This person if they went
through the system – that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was talking
about – has to wait a year and a half. Just think about that. Here is a person –
P. LANE:
Who is going to look after
her husband then in the meantime if she can't see?
E. JOYCE:
Who is going to look after
her husband in the meantime if she can't see? Then, all of a sudden, you have to
get home care in, you have to get people in to take care of them, you have to
make sure that the medication, you have to get the blood work done – she can't
drive; she can't do any of that anymore. So here it is, capacity to get it done,
funds to get it done, but because we have a quota system in this province for
cataract surgery, you can't get it done.
In
Western Newfoundland, it is the same thing. There is capacity there, there's
ability to get it done there, yet for some reason this government refuses to do
it. Absolutely refuses to do it.
So I
would urge the government, once again, put a bit of water in the wine if you
have a personality conflict. Think about what we're been elected for. We've been
elected to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we're elected to
serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we should do it to the best of
our ability. And if we can do services for 800 seniors on the West Coast for
cataract surgery, which is going to be cheaper, more efficient, and they could
have their eyesight back in three to four months, instead of 14 to 18 months,
shouldn't we do it? It's a win-win situation, Mr. Speaker, and I refuse to give
up on the issue because it's so important to the seniors.
And I
hear it and I see them. I actually know the people. Not all of them, of course.
You can go right from Baie Verte right down the Northern Peninsula they come to
Corner Brook, right in the Corner Brook District, Bay of Islands District and
Stephenville area. I know the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port is getting
calls out there and he's nodding his head saying he does get calls about the
cataract surgeries.
So why
can't we as a government say okay, b'ys, here's the way we want to alleviate the
suffering of 800 seniors and we just won't do it. God knows how long
negotiations are going to take to get nurse practitioners on the MCP. So the
seniors and these two seniors that I just spoke about, keep paying your money,
but if you're lucky enough to have a doctor, you don't pay a cent. You go ahead.
You want to talk about a two-tier health care system, there it is right there.
You want to talk about that we need a health care system right across the board,
there it is. If anybody in this House wants to talk about a two-tier health care
system, look at the seniors who have to pay a nurse practitioner and the ones
who have a doctor who don't. That's the issue, Mr. Speaker.
If you
want to look at cataract surgeries – and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands
was this morning when he was talking about it. So it's just not Corner Brook,
Western Newfoundland, it's also in the St. John's, Mount Pearl area.
So there
are ways to do this. There are easy ways for us to do this, but we just need the
will. We need to say, okay, we have a problem. It's all right, Mr. Speaker, to
say we have a problem. That's all right. Many times ourselves we could say,
okay, yeah, we have a problem; what can we do to fix it? There are easy fixes
for both of it – easy fixes. Just that we've got to get the will to do it. As
long as we stand in this House and keep debating, no, we can't do it or, no, we
shouldn't have to do it, there are people in this province suffering.
There
are people in this province right now, seniors, who got to pay for medical care
when they shouldn't have to pay. There are people in this province who can't get
their medication filled because they can't even read it, and they can't drive to
get to it. We could get this fixed easy.
I see my
time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I'll have lots of opportunity during debate.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the main budget motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, to adjourn debate on Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that we adjourn debate on Motion 1.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Concurrence Motion, report from the Resource Committee.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that the report
of the Resource Committee be concurred in.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
on Concurrence for this. I want to thank the Resource Committee. During
Estimates, I know we had a lot of great Members and we also had some Members
substitute in, so I want to thank the Committee but also Members that actually
participated as well, who substituted in, and also all the people that came in
from all the different departments and stuff to provide Estimates.
It's
really much appreciated to do that. It does take some time; it is a long
process, but they all took the time to come here and answer our questions. So it
was very much appreciated from everyone. I do want to thank all of them and
thank my colleagues.
Also
there is a lot of staff from different caucus offices that participated too,
that sat with us through it. We did meet five times and it was great insight
into all the different parts of the different Committees and that. You learn a
lot, you find out a lot and it is a big learning exercise. So I do want to thank
them all for that.
Inside
of that, though, not as the Vice-Chair of the Committee, but me as Jordan the
Member for Labrador West, I do want to say there is some interesting stuff in
there and there's some stuff that you learn along the way and it brings a bit of
how these departments work and how these different things actually operate, and
it's quite fascinating sometimes. You don't get to see the whole big picture
every single day. Sometimes an assistant deputy minister or director or
something there sheds a little bit of light on some stuff. It was good,
especially with the Resource Committee, to see different industries and stuff
that operate throughout the province.
Sometimes you don't realize that there is certain operations out there chugging
along that you don't know about, little small industries that operate in the
background. We get an opportunity to learn about different things like that,
that you just never thought that was here.
I know
especially with the Resource Committee, too, we talked about agriculture and
stuff like that. It's just fascinating. I grew up in a community that never had
– other than your community garden or anything like that, you don't realize
there is a large agricultural industry in this province. It's fascinating to see
that we have that ability, but also that there are proposals for potato farming
in Labrador West, all done out there. It's just interesting. There are different
abilities to expand and grow that industry. I just never thought of the
potential for commercial-scale potato farming in Labrador West. It is
interesting to see these are different things that are coming along and moving
along.
I do
want to mention – we talk about the home industry, the industry that built and
continues to provide for the region in Labrador West – iron mining and the
magnitude on which scale that is done. We are looking at now just continuing to
grow, and grow on both sides in Labrador West. Just across the border they're
also expanding their operations so more and more and more iron is coming out of
the ground. The job aspect of it is they just can't get enough workers. It's
just not for the mine industry but mine services and community services. The
magnitude that it is right now is absolutely fascinating.
It was
interesting to see an advertising campaign for one of the mines. The ad was:
Join us for the next 150 years. Just to show that's the outlook, their current
outlook is 150 years. So can you imagine a mine advertising itself saying: We're
good for 150 years. That just shows how much of the resource is in the ground in
Labrador West that they're advertising: join us for 150 years.
I have
to say tonnage wise this is the largest industry in the province right now, just
the weight of it. But it operates the last railroad in this province. In this
province, some job postings are for conductors and enginemen. This is a very
thriving industry in our province, in mining, and now you're starting to see it
trickle out through different parts of the province. To talk about that in
Estimates was great, because we're looking at a big future with lots of
opportunity and stuff like that.
I know
the commodity markets can be like a dog's stomach, up and down, but the
consistency is still there. Even during the last downturn in the iron market, it
went down and it got scary for a little while. But, at the end of the day, we
were still persistent. We still got through it. People still had jobs and people
still continue to mine iron, and now we're on the other side of it. As we've
seen in the last three years a consistent price in the $100-something a ton
which is the golden area for the ability, not just to mine and make it work but
also to see reinvestment back into the industry.
It was
important that we see that, but we also see the opportunities for gold and other
deemed critical minerals now, so, hopefully, we'll see a lot more investment
into the region. We should be pursuing is like a dog with a bone, pursuing the
industry, because we're just seeing between Vale and Tesla to sell nickel into
the battery-making markets.
People
are watching us, people are seeing us; people are seeing that the opportunities
are there for that industry. I'm looking forward to seeing what other
opportunities we can pursue in that market, but also to take stock of what we
have and what we're currently producing.
Then we
go to gold, it's interesting when you think of the gold industry and the mining.
It's not always about jewelry and coins and everything like that, gold has a
massive market, but it's in the electronics industry. Every little microchip,
every single thing that we have now at our disposal between our phones and even
the key fob to start your car, everything like that, there is a little bit of
gold in every microchip that's out there now. The gold industry is not just for
shiny new coins or shiny new anything, it actually has a very valid part in the
electronics world.
We, as a
society, as a whole, if we continue to work down the path of technology and
things, gold will continue to be a massive key part in that world. We have some
of the largest gold deposits in Eastern Canada. It's good that we see that
investment and stuff has paid off after many years of exploration and the
geoscience and everything like that, because a mine doesn't start after the
prospector stakes their claim. It's a 10-year process just to get to the point
where a lot of junior miners are today.
It is a
long process and when you actually finally get that final mine licence, it is a
big deal for these mining companies and stuff, especially the junior miners, the
small ones that are trying to compete on global scale, it's great when they get
to the point where they can actually put shovels in the ground and start hiring
for mining and stuff.
It's a
labour-intensive industry so it does hire a lot of people, and not just the
actual mining part of it. Mine services is a massive industry and all the other
wraparound supports that does come with mining. It is good to see that there.
We talk
about resources and the different resources of this province, but you also have
to look at the biggest resource of all is people. People in this province
investing back into the people of this province is key, because, as you can see
now, where I come from in Labrador West, we're trying to find people to work and
everything like that. So investment back into people, into training, education,
but even just to make their lives a little bit easier, especially in northern
and rural communities. The investment back into people will always pay back
twofold.
It's
important that we take the opportunities when we do look at resources to look at
the opportunities, but look at the people who are going to work in the resource
industries, look at how people are going to contribute to the resource
industries. Because, at the end of the day, these people are what actually
operates the equipment and processes the fish and all the other things. At the
end of the day, it's people. That is when we reinvest back into it.
Then,
also, the business owners and people who have a dream. Invest back into them and
you always get twofold back. That's the thing that you have to look at is when
we're doing these projects and stuff like that, make sure that there is
investments back into the people, but also the communities that will host this
industry. Because sometimes what we've seen is, like during a boom or a rapid
expansion of an industry, sometimes the communities have a hard time dealing
with it from a resource point of view, but also from a point of view of how you
create, how you service and how you manage.
We
always found that in our area the biggest thing always, as it is right now, is
where are we going to put people to live. All these new people moving into the
area, how much is this going to haul onto services and how much is it going to
affect – I know my colleague from Lake Melville, I know when they did Muskrat
Falls they had a lot of issues with road conditions and the amount of traffic on
roads and stuff like that, because they had so much of a massive influx into the
region that it did actually start to have an impact on the roads and services
and stuff like that.
So it
doesn't matter if it's mining, if it's hydro development or anything, the
investment has to go back into the communities that are going to host these
people. We're going to work in these industries as well. Even sometimes when you
invest into a region, it actually helps spur industry and spur resources and
spur this kind of development into there. So there's also the other side of the
coin per se, that sometimes a little bit of investment into a community could
also increase the value of what comes out in resources.
So it is
a bigger picture; it is a lot of things going on and a lot of moving parts. But,
at the end of the day, you have to find that sweet spot where investment is
going to return in value. That's what I think about, too: Where are we going to
put these resources; how will we manage these resources; and how does it all
work at the end of the day?
It is an
interesting area when it comes to the province and when it comes to Estimates
and the budget. There is some value in there and there's a lot of value in
hearing from all the people in Estimates on these different departments and
things like that. But also, we stop to think about: how do we maximize
investment, but all at the same time as how do we maximize the human resources
so that we know that we have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working, trained
and ready for this.
Because
there is some stuff here that we, as a province, have the ability to become the
corner of the market, especially with the new technology that's developing, but
also the change in how economies work, and the movement away with the carbon
reduction and things like that. We have the ability right now to actually be the
leader in that. Not every region is blessed as we are to have all the different
types of resources we have. We are very lucky to be geographically where we're
to, and we can't squander that. We actually have to find a way that we can
manage it in a way that will maximize benefit for us but also get out ahead in
the market and show the rest of the world that we have this.
So one
great start was obviously the deal with Vale and Tesla, but we have the largest
iron deposit in North America. We also have some of the largest gold deposits in
Eastern Canada. There are all kinds of other stuff that's still yet to be found.
So maybe it's a good investment now to have a look at the mining industry and
see how we can maximize – how do we get it to market? And that always is a
challenge for us; we are far away from markets, but at the same time we do have
the ability to get it to market.
If we
can find a way to maximize selling our brands abroad, I think that's the best
thing that we can do right now. And that's not just for mining, you know, that's
just personal experiences of an industry that I worked in, but the fishery,
agriculture, forestry, it all applies in the same way too as that. And the thing
with forestry, fishery and agriculture, they're renewable resources. As long as
we maintain it and protect it, it's something that is forever and a day. So how
can we maximize those industries; how do we maximize people training in those
industries?
And I
know the minister spoke before. The revitalization of our agricultural industry
is very important, but at the same time we have to make sure we have people
trained and interested but also, again, human resources. We have to make sure
that we have enough people to continue to work in these industries, make sure
that they are prepared, but also that they want to work in these industries. We
have to make it something that people want to say when they're in high school:
oh, I want to be a farmer. That's great, and that's something we should be
encouraging and finding ways to continue to encourage. Because farming and
agriculture is a renewable industry that as long as you protect it, it's there
forever. So this is something that we also need to take into consideration.
Management of fisheries and things like that, too – it is a great industry. It's
renewable and if managed correctly and properly, it will be there forever. But,
at the same time, we have to sell our brand, make sure that we have something
that the world wants. I know it takes a lot of marketing magic sometimes, but we
have to do it. We have to find a way to get our product to market and do it that
way. But also, the human resources again, people trained who want to work in
this industry and say, hey, I want to work in the fishery, and nurture those
people. Because once they're gone, it's hard really hard to replace them.
With
that, Speaker, I take my seat.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to discuss the Estimates within Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
I'm probably going to start with Crown lands, and then I'll move towards the
fishery in my address.
I'm
going to have a confession first because, in my petition that I stated today, I
noticed the hon. Member across from me in Education wondered about and was
questioning the colour of what I had stated on the map, but it must have been
the political map I was looking at. The Crown lands map has the quieting areas
that show no ownership as green on the map.
I
presented on behalf of the residents of Bonavista, Speaker, a petition today
looking at Crown lands, and it consumed some time within the Estimates that we
looked at it. My hon. colleague from Exploits will surely raise Crown lands as
well, but I want to discuss about the injustice of which the
Crown Lands Act is bestowing upon the residents in the District of
Bonavista. I will cite some examples, without citing names, as examples that
have occurred in my tenure as MHA within the district and the astronomical cost
of which was associated. Some followed through, paying large sums of money;
others, not.
I stated
in the petition that Bonavista was one of the earliest settlements. If you drove
to Cape Bonavista, you'll see the gentleman that is alleged to have landed in
Newfoundland and Labrador and I think that was part of the colonization then
that the Europeans came over to fish and a lot of them resided in Bonavista;
that was in the 1500s.
I stated
in the House of Assembly that this Chamber – or the House of Assembly didn't
begin until 1832. But thousands of people had already owned land by that time.
Squatter's rights were what we always operated under. If you can have an
affidavit to show that you had continuous ownership and usage of that property,
then that is what was needed. I think the correct term in the legal sense was
open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession. Those were the principles
of which the law firms would go by when you're looking at settling land.
Very few
in Bonavista did a full accounting of the land that was occupied. Governments
have not done a full accounting of the lands that existed in Bonavista and other
historical districts for hundreds and hundreds of years. So as I stated earlier
in the petition, if you look at the land use map in the District of Bonavista
and the Crown lands, you'll find all of Bonavista is listed in green. And all
green because they are all quieting; there is no clear title to land in
Bonavista.
So what
happens when somebody seeks to have clear title to the land that their families
have been on for hundreds and hundreds of years? It will cost them thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars in court fees to have it settled, if indeed
they could get it settled.
I'm
going to give you some examples in a short time. What is a solution? In 1976, in
this Chamber – were we in the House of Assembly in '76? It may have been the
previous House of Assembly.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
C. PARDY:
Oh, upstairs. Anyway, not in
this Chamber but within the House of Assembly –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
C. PARDY:
The Minister of Education
remembers that time. It was the government at the time, Minister Rousseau, who
brought it forward. Everyone was in agreement within the House of what the
expectation of the Crown lands were at that time. I want to read you a couple of
excerpts from Hansard, which talked
about the good faith in which this legislation and the amendment in 1976
occurred.
The
Liberal leader at the time in 1976 stated the following in
Hansard: “But it would not be our intention, for example, if a man
was continuously, whatever you call that term, Mr. Speaker, in open, notorious,
exclusive possession of Crown lands for a reasonable period. I do not think that
that would apply. Something would be worked out.”
The
Minister, Rousseau at the time, stated: “The most important principle of this
bill is that nobody is trying to do anybody out of their land.” I repeat: “…
nobody is trying to do anybody out of their land.
“What we
are saying is, look if you have had squatter's rights for twenty years why do it
for another forty years – because it was 60 years. So if you've got it for 20,
why do it for another 40; 20 was now the benchmark. That was the genesis of
which changing in 1976. Instead of 60, we're going to 20 to help out those
people in Bonavista, of which now are spending thousands before the courts. “Let
us clear it up so we know that that land belongs to John Jones or John Q.
Citizen.”
So the
intent back at that time was to change it to 20 years, whereas it was 60. What
happened after 1976 was that through the judicial process they said that you
must prove between 20 years, but not rotating – 20 years between 1956 and 1976.
So if
you think today in 2022 John Doe in Bonavista is going to look at settling their
land, they're going to have to get affidavits from somebody who could vouch for
that land back in the early '50s or the mid-50s. And I would say every year that
passes it becomes more problematic to get somebody to vouch for somebody's land.
So while
I sit here today as the MHA for the District of Bonavista, like other historical
areas, nobody – a very slim minority – got clear title to the land in the Town
of Bonavista. The same could be said for Port Rexton and Trinity. If you don't
go through the courts or you don't have any transaction on that land, you will
get by. Even the ones that had the Registry of Deeds and had everything
registered through legal recourse, they can't sell their property; it's tied up
in the courts. If they are successful, it costs them a whole lot of money
through legal fees.
So what
is the solution? The solution is back to 1976 with what they intended. Pick any
20 years. It doesn't have to be '56 to '76, select any 20-year period. If you
can certainly claim then that you had open, notorious and exclusive possession,
that land is yours. Then, move on with the others that don't lay claim to it.
Let me
share with you a couple of examples of land active in the courts and from the
District of Bonavista. This lady, a resident of Bonavista, applied for a
quieting of title certificate for land on a lane in the middle of Bonavista, but
we know that it is all green. She hasn't got clear title to that land but she
was going for quieting of titles.
Her
mother had been paying property tax on the land for over 20 years, but in the
Crown's eyes that did not matter because that would not show ownership that she
had it. The Town of Bonavista, of course, issued a billing certificate for the
property in 2005. The title search on the property indicates that the land was
likely contained within a certain family claim back to the area when deeds were
registered in the 1920s. Adjacent land had been successfully quieted in the
early '70s. Crown Lands objected to the entirety of the claim.
My
constituent, the lady, withdrew the quieting in 2021, having been unable to
resolve matters with the Crown. No other objections were received, Crown only.
Nobody – the neighbours in the neighbourhood, only the Crown. Her legal fees?
Thousands of dollars.
Let me
share with you. Come up the peninsula and we're in Bloomfield. We have a couple
in Bloomfield who bought land in 1973. Remember, the
Lands Act was changed in '76, but they bought it in '73. They built
a house on it. A deed for the transaction was prepared and rightfully registered
at the Registry of Deeds in 1975. This family then bought adjacent land next
door to their house in 1977, which was registered in the same year. Paid legal
fees to have it registered.
Both the
1975 and 1977 deeds had recitals of history and of the land, and affidavits of
long possession of the land from which they bought it. They occupied the
property for 50 years, until health issues dictated that he had to move closer
to St. John's. Then came the problem of trying to sell the land. He had a buyer,
the lawyers for the buyer questioned the title of the land, which is common
practice to make sure it's clear title, and Crown Lands objected to the majority
of the claim.
What
they returned with was so much of the property – the only thing was that the
property line ran right through this couple's house. So two-thirds of the house
was on property that the Crown decided to have no objection with. One-third was
on that the Crown objected to them having that land in the first place. So what
happened? Ultimately, Crown Lands created a line to give him his full house, at
a cost, but he did not release the land that they bought in 1977, the acre that
was by the side of them that they had paid for. They wouldn't release control
over that.
I was
the one that advocated on their behalf as far as this settlement, but when I
called the couple back, they were quite upset with me. I was respectful of that
because, really, what they were upset with was Crown Lands and government. I was
tied with it because I was trying to broker on their behalf.
So,
anyway, they got their house, they sold their house; the land next door they
didn't get. Their legal fees, are you ready? Close to $40,000. So I would say to
you, the Lands Act we've got here is
not serving those people who are moving land in rural Newfoundland, and
certainly not in the District of Bonavista. I would say it's too long, far too
long.
I want
to give you one more, quick example, because this is one now of which this
couple called me. Let me read this one and it's the last one, I promise. A
couple in Trinity Bay North, in Catalina, they built a house on the land in
1983, the land that was owned and registered by her father. Her father had
bought it from a family in 1981. A proper deed was prepared and registered at
the Registry of Deeds in 1986. Again, as I stated, accompanied by affidavits of
possession by seniors who could vouch for it at that time.
They
have been living in the home for 40 years. The lady now has cancer. She is
requesting to move, to sell the house and, like the family in Bloomfield, they
have a purchaser. But guess what?
T. WAKEHAM:
Crown Lands.
C. PARDY:
My hon. colleague next door
from Stephenville - Port au Port says Crown lands, and he's 100 per cent
correct.
So they
went to the court – and this has just gone now recently in 2021 – the purchaser,
which is right, the purchaser raised a title issue regarding that father's
estate and the matter put forward on a quieting. Crown Lands objected to the
entirety of the land claim. No other objections from the community were received
and the matter is still ongoing in the court.
The only
thing I would say to you, I have five others but I don't need to go through them
because they're the same as what we've had.
What was
proposed by the outgoing minister in 2015 was the fact that we should have
squatter's rights that have a 20-year period, but that 20-year period could be a
floating period. So if you have open, notorious and exclusive possession in that
20-year period, then that should be suffice for the courts and for Crown. But
whereas currently it's not.
Municipalities in the District of Bonavista, one in
particular in the middle, often tell me they used to be able to have delinquent
landowners within their municipality, land tied up without paying taxes, they
would go through the courts and they would repossess the land. Only thing is
different now for this town council in the District of Bonavista is that when
they went through the quieting of that property, guess who had an objection to
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Crown Lands.
C.
PARDY:
Crown Lands. My colleagues are with me here.
The only thing being is that the municipality, they're
locked up now and they haven't had a transaction within that municipality for
some time. So the only thing I would say is we need to revisit the legislation
on Crown lands. I would say the land that is in green, which I early thought it
was in blue in Bonavista, all that land that is now in green, we ought to
determine who has got the ownership in that land, have a mission to make sure
that those people in historical districts got title to the land and start off
new with our squatter's rights and reactivating the squatter's rights for a
20-year period.
I went a little longer on that than what I had
intended. I have a tendency to get carried away. I knew that early in life but I
am battling it and trying to – I want to stick with the fishery and within that
area.
I had asked two questions in the Estimates, whether the
Department of Finance had issued any targets for this fiscal for attrition – any
attrition targets, but in the last two Estimates I was told that there was no
attritions targets for this. I would assume that why there are no attrition
targets is because we have a full-time job trying to get some vacancies filled,
which we have in government. If that is the reason, then I can probably relate
to that.
Another thing I raised in Estimates was the fact that
the Premier's Greene report stated, “the governance structure of the fisheries
is not working in this province.” I think fishers, processors and residents
would say it isn't. We ought to have an action plan within our government and
within our House of Assembly, which I think we would all be in concurrence with,
that we do need a better governance model.
It doesn't mean we're going in with money that we've got to contribute, but we
need to be part of a decision-making model of which decisions are made that
impact Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without it coming to us as a surprise.
It doesn't mean that we've got to contribute money to be part of that
decision-making.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the granted time.
SPEAKER:
I thank the Member for
Bonavista.
Just for
the information of the House, whoever catches my eye, they will go next. And
it's lovely to see a lineup.
The hon.
the Minister of Fishery, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's
always a great opportunity to talk about what was the number one problem in the
province, Crown lands. As the Member just explained to everyone, we have a
68-day turnaround on a normal routine application, but you have some very
complex applications when it becomes Crown lands. What appears on the surface to
be so easy and so simple gets so complicated so fast.
One of
the main things – and Greenspond was settled before Bonavista, just for the
record, let Hansard show. We came in
200 years after John Cabot in 1697, when we settled in there and so there are
similar situations. But what we would have had is large blocks of land that
would have been owned by one person, maybe, in this case, a triple-times
great-grandfather. That land got subdivided so many different ways with a
handshake, a wink, a nod, someone died, someone else moved in, so squatter's
rights was the only option to figure out some of these blocks of lands. And
let's be fair, squatter's right is as close to amnesty as you could ever ask
for.
It's
saying 20 years previous to January 1, 1977, if you were living there, we're
going to consider you to be the owner. So that's not much different than
amnesty. And the Member opposite said: Why not have a revolving 20 years? So
then I was thinking if someone sat now – 20 years goes like the blink of an eye.
So are you saying now that people should illegally occupy Crown lands because in
20 years' time they'll own it? I don't think that's where we need to be. So a
rolling 20 years for Crown lands is not where we need to be.
Right
now, there is an option; you apply for a section 36, but that gets complicated
because Great-Aunt Sophie's great-great-grandchild once removed times twice
lives away in Alberta finds out that you're going for this block of land,
registers a complaint: Well, that was our family land. And it becomes very
convoluted and sometimes, as the Member said, thousands of dollars to figure it
out. Because, by that time, someone has built a house that is probably worth
$400,000 on that piece of property that he just can't move it.
Crown
lands become so complicated, so many times. That is in our incorporated areas.
Now, if you go out to unincorporated areas where there are no records, it gets
more complicated. Remote Islands more complicated again. I know up in Bonavista
Bay they must have resettled 40 small villages off these islands and people have
gone back and said: That is my family land. But family reaches out so far that
someone else comes back and said: Yeah, well, it was my family too and you have
no right to be there.
So
although someone occupied – and you'll see the chimney in a lot of these places
because it was a concrete block for the chimney that was still there. So Crown
lands is far, far from being easy to figure out in places like Bonavista and my
hometown of Greenspond because there is history there.
If you
go into the Town of Gander, that's only been there for the last 60 years, it is
pretty easy to figure out landownership, for the most part. Anywhere where towns
are relatively new. But in the old sections of this – Fogo Island comes to mind,
almost any of the small, rural communities. I was up on the Northern Peninsula
and we (inaudible) down from Great Harbour Deep and there were a couple of
places between where houses had just fallen down. If ever there were some reason
for someone to go back there, I am sure any paperwork on that is long gone, long
destroyed.
What
would appear to be once the right land becomes the wrong land. I had two
brothers one time, when I worked with the town, and they both stood up and said:
Yes, this is our land right here. One fellow said: The step was here. The other
brother said: Go on, for God's sake, that rock over there is where we used to
be. So it is memories sometimes change.
I agree
with the Member, sometimes it is difficult. But you need somebody that is 75 or
80 to sign an affidavit, two or three if you can get them. As difficult as it
sounds, it is still possible to get older people to sign these affidavits. There
are ways to do it. We help out where we can, but we just can't let people squat
somewhere, build a house and 20 years' time think they own it. It is our
resource, it is the Crown lands of this province and we need the people to ante
up for it. It isn't fair for me to go to Crown Lands and pay $7,000 or $8,000
for a block of land and someone else go somewhere else and just build on it and,
in 20 years' time say, well, it's mine now.
We
cannot have that process. We just can't throw out the squatter's rights from
years ago. Can it be modified? Maybe, but we need to find a way and most
incorporated towns would have records that date back a long time.
The
other thing is paying taxes. Because you pay taxes on it, that's a municipal
thing. The municipality would impose the tax, not the province. So it's a
municipal property tax people would pay because the house was built there, and
it sometimes becomes an issue. Because what happens, people have actually sold
land they don't own. That was father's land, that was grandfather's land, or
grandmother's land and they just sell it. But there's no real ownership.
But
because it was sold for little amount of money and there was no mortgages
involved, so many pieces of land changed hands so many times in this province,
in the rural part of this province – and I would think in the older parts of St.
John's, we probably would find the same thing, that actual documented ownership
of a piece of land is going to be difficult if it's sold for lower quantities of
money.
I've had
where banks have sold land, probably being repossessed, and then it was found
out the house was never built on the land of the person who thought they owned
the land. Because the survey should have been over there on the other side of
the road. So there are lots of complicated aspects about Crown land.
The
Member for Exploits, last year, most of his questions would have been around
Crown lands, because some of them went on for years. People are not in the
courts and using lawyers for it, because it just comes down, as I said before,
lots of times, between neighbours disputing boundary lines is almost always the
case. They said the best neighbour you can have is the one where there's a fence
between you. The fence defines who owns what. But a lot of fences were torn down
and burned so many years ago that everybody distorted where the landownership
is.
I
appreciate the issue in Bonavista. It's not only Bonavista; it's anywhere in
this province that has a house that's 100 years old, or the house was torn down
and people moved away. So Crown lands is something we like to work with people
with, but there are some very, very, very complicated files.
I was
hoping to take some notes on the fishery, but I think the Member ran out of time
before he really got into his speaking notes. I just want like everyone to know
I guess in this province, so frustrating as it is, you just can't go in and
occupy a piece of land. We have it now where people say, well, it's only $1,000
fine if I go there. That's the wrong attitude – that is the wrong attitude to go
and build and then you get $1,000 fine. So like I said, with Crown lands, it's
not just cut and paste and it's not that simple. I wish it was, but actually
it's not.
So any
time the Member opposite would like to sit down and talk about Crown lands, I've
made this offer before, or any other Member in this House, I invite them to come
to our office and I'll get the Crown Lands manager for their region and we'll
talk about their problem files.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
good this evening to be able to stand up here and represent the District of
Exploits again. During Concurrence of course we did talk about agriculture,
forestry, wildlife and Crown lands. So seeing my colleague from Bonavista only
spent a couple of minutes on Crown lands, I think I'll take a bit of time and
talk about Crown lands.
AN HON. MEMBER:
And seals.
P. FORSEY:
Later.
Anyway,
I respect the minister for his comments on Crown lands, I really do. The
searches of the land do go back a long ways. But then again, as the Member for
Bonavista said, those standards, back in '76, they do sort of need to be brought
up to the current year of 2022. We need to certainly look at the
Crown Lands Act.
In
regard to Crown lands itself, I know that in Estimates of course we were told
that there was a 60-day standard, which is fine, but we're still getting calls
to my office, especially, and I'm getting them all across the province,
actually, of Crown land applications that are still not being approved.
Certainly not in the 60-day standard. Sixty-day standard is mostly to say that
your application is on file and waiting approvals of one department or another.
So the 60-day standard probably does work that way if there's nothing wrong with
it.
But I'm
still hearing of two years to three, probably some even longer, of the
application not being approved. I know there's a backlog in Crown Lands; there
are probably a couple of thousand applications right now that's still in Crown
Lands that are not being approved. So that happens through the multiple
departments that Crown Lands have to go through. It's not only Crown Lands, it's
Service NL, it's Municipalities, it's Transportation, Forestry – I think there
are eight of them altogether that Crown Lands has to channel through.
So by
the time it goes through every department and everyone does their own work on
it, gets it back to Crown Lands again, yeah, it does take more than 68 days for
that to happen. Whereas probably if Crown Lands spoke to the rest of the
departments, gave them an option, probably, of 30-day standards for everybody to
get back, maybe those applications would be sped up to a convenient amount of
time. Probably after a year or so, year and a half, maybe we would get some
approvals. That's on the new Crown land applications, that's not the ones dating
back to '76 and beyond on squatter's rights. That's just on the new
applications.
Certainly, if we get those applications approved in a fashionable standard, that
helps out the economy. People are eager, especially in the spring of the year,
summertime. That's when people want to do their building construction with
regard to getting lumber bought; getting different supplies that can be used to
help out the economy, put people back to work. Crown lands application approvals
are a very important detail with regard to the economy itself, because anything
is always built from the ground up, and without ground you cannot start.
Applications need to be streamlined a little bit more through Crown Lands so
that we can get departments back to work. Like I say, hopefully one of those
days probably the minister or the department would take a look at the Crown
Lands Act and bring it up to standard-day needs.
Having
said that, during Estimates, of course, forestry – another big part of my
district. All these areas are pertaining to my district: forestry, farming,
wildlife and Crown lands. Every one of those I hear and it's big in my district.
Forestry is a big one. I know that it's been through tough times. It's been
through decreases in business and that sort of stuff in the forestry in Central
Newfoundland, especially since Abitibi went down. We need to find an industry in
Central Newfoundland, especially in Districts 10, 11, 12 for the forest
industry.
Permits,
of course, are always an issue in our district. Even the local domestic cutters,
local sawmill operators and commercial ones; they can't get any extra permits.
They tried to get some extra permits to do some extra work, try to survive a
little bit more, but they just can't get those permits. The problem with those
permits is that in 2017 the government did unlock 280,000 cubic metres of fibre
from the old Abitibi permits, which was well needed, should have been done as
soon as Abitibi went, I suppose. But that was well needed and it was something
that that fibre could have been used to build an industry – another industry –
in Central Newfoundland. I know there's mining and that sort of stuff in there,
it's on the way, but we've suffered in the forest industry long enough in
Central Newfoundland.
I know
that the minister has stated on different news channels, that sort of stuff,
that there are 1,500 jobs tied to forestry in Newfoundland and Labrador. There
probably is, not doubting it for one minute. But those jobs are not directly in
Central Newfoundland where the main resource is.
D. BRAGG:
Nineteen hundred and twenty.
P. FORSEY:
Nineteen hundred and twenty
jobs, thank you, Minister. But those are not directly in Central Newfoundland
where the forest industry is. No doubt there are some harvesters up there
cutting, there are some trucks, that kind of stuff, being used to transport
those timbers and that forestry back and forth across the province, east to west
and everything being shipped out of Central Newfoundland. When Abitibi closed
its doors, those permits were left there for Central Newfoundland, for another
industry to be found to go to Central Newfoundland to create that employment,
give the economy back to the people in Central Newfoundland, which didn't
happen. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.
What did
happen, back in 2016-2017, the permits then – that 280,000 cubic metres was then
allotted to the bigger players. That would go from east to west, whatnot; the
bigger players are not in Central Newfoundland. All the processing industry is
not in Central Newfoundland, it's outside of Central Newfoundland where the bulk
of the jobs are.
Not
taking away from any jobs that are supposed to be outside, wherever the job can
be created. Listen, we're all looking for that. We all want that. But as for
Central Newfoundland, it's like a forest industry – that there was supposed to
be in Central Newfoundland. That's where it's to. It's no good for Central
Newfoundland to be looking for a fish plant. We don't have fish.
So our
forestry, we need to build on an industry and a secondary industry in Central
Newfoundland. The permits now were done probably February of this year – this is
2022 – with another five-year plan. So the five-year plan will take you up to
probably 2026-2027. That's going to give nobody a chance to give a secondary
industry with regard to forestry in Central Newfoundland. It's not allotted.
Anybody
who wants extra permits just for their own sawmills and domestic cutting, they
can get some. But the permit that they're going to get, you have be a billy goat
to go cut it, honestly. They will give you some extra permits to cross bogs, up
on hills. Wherever terrain is rough, that's where they will give the other
smaller contractors the permits to go cut this stuff.
Yet the
prime cutting spruce, the prime cutting lumber, flatlands, easy access– who got
it? The bigger players pushing out the smaller players for at least the next
five years. What needs to be done there on the forestry part of it is that you
have to find a more diversified plan that diversifies more business with regard
to the forestry.
I know
there are plans. The minister will come on and he'll say: I never seen no
permits. I never saw anybody looking for any extra business. I haven't seen any
business plans. We haven't seen anybody with permits. Yet they're all coming to
my office with business plans. They are coming to my office with applications
gone in for extra permits. All denied – they all keep getting denied.
Even
though, yes, it's great and employment outside – it is creating employment in
Newfoundland itself, but that forestry was left there for the people of the
Central region, to create some employment in that area to get the economy back
boosting the way it was before. We've struggled on that so I think that's
something we have to look at with regard to diversifying business in Central
Newfoundland. We need to utilize our forestry in a lot of different ways.
Farmers
and agriculture: again, that was another big topic. Actually, that's big in my
area too. I know that the crops and that – this year it's up again. Farmers
have, in the past few years, increased different crops, different supplies and
they have been doing well, but this year, of course, there is a big, big
problem. The cost of fuels, the cost of living has just gone through the roof.
The cost of living has also hit the farmers and the cost of living is hitting
our plates on our tables.
Our
farmers are the ones that are producing that crop. Their high cost of operations
right now, this does trickle down to our tables, but right now probably some of
them are facing elimination and they might not even be in the game. They can't
get any more with regard to food self-sufficiency, they can't clear any more
land. They're not even looking at clearing land, which needs to be done in order
to increase food self-sufficiency. If they're going to increase crop, you need
land. You need to get it cleared.
They
can't clear this land because of the cost of fuels and the cost of fertilizers;
it's not even worthwhile to go at it, because they know they can't do any of it
anyway. They're even questioning their own regular crops that they have this
year. This is creating a big, big problem.
I know
diesel fuel – I was talking to one farmer, he told me diesel fuel, 83 cent he
paid last year. This year, he's paying $2.03 a litre just for diesel fuel – just
for fuel. So you can't clear land with the equipment that they have.
One type
of fertilizer that he's using, $754 a ton he was paying last year. This year,
he's going to be paying $1,354 a ton. Double on fertilizer, and that's the
fertilizer that goes on our regular crops, on cabbages, carrots, potatoes,
that's our regular fertilizer. They just can't sustain it, no.
Hydraulics that goes in those units, that's big, too. They're all hydraulic
units. They used to pay $74 for a five-gallon drum last year. This year, $115
just for hydraulics to put in those units.
Not only
that, parts themselves – now that's just the liquids, but the parts themselves
are up, a 40 per cent increase on parts and equipment. Actually, that's just on
parts. The new equipment itself, if they wanted to go buy a new tractor, well
that's up 40 per cent as well. How can you buy a new piece of equipment to help
out with farming? What do you do? Do you buy a new piece of equipment that you
might not be able to use, or do you try to keep up the old one that you have
there, putting good money after bad?
So
that's some of the problems that the farmers are hitting this year.
Insurances is another one. Their insurances are up 46 per cent this year. Some
of them are paying over $8,000 per month. That's just for insurances.
So
agriculture will be a difficulty in the future. I mean to say, we're going to
have to be looking at the food self-sufficiency, which we'd like to have here in
our province. I mean to say, we need it for our tables. We need farmers to be
growing. We need new farmers to be coming in.
I know
there are initiatives for new farmers. The minister mentioned the potato farm
there a little while ago; I think it was on the West Coast. They put $2.75
million into two potato farms, non-recoverable grants, that's what they gave
them. That's what they gave them to get the potatoes in the ground, but we need
to be talking to our existing farmers, our experienced farmers to help them out.
Especially in this situation right now, they are in dire straits.
They are
all across the province; I'm hearing from my area, I'm hearing from other areas
as well. We need to help out those farmers now, or try to do something. We can
do that in the form of probably looking at fuels, of course, taxes on fuels. I
know the Member from Stephenville - Port au Port has pushed this quite often.
And here it is right now, it's causing a – you take the fuels that they use –
actually, I said the fuels back there, 83 cents to $2.03 a litre on diesel.
The
taxes on that, the amount they burn in a piece of equipment. We have to look at
the taxes on those fuels to help those farmers along. Even if we did that, it
would certainly play a big part in helping those farmers with the taxes on those
fuels. Maybe some extra relief in the forms of grants and interest-free loans.
It's been done before. So maybe we can look at something like that.
Certainly we have to reach out to the federal government, I know the CAP
programs and that are there, but we certainly got to reach out to the federal
government demand more from the federal government.
During
COVID they did give out a recovery benefit program. The recovery benefit was
somewhere around a $40,000 loan, if they paid back $30,000, they kept the
$10,000. So something like that we can look at with our counterparts up in
Ottawa, but we need our government to go to Ottawa, or contact Ottawa, and say
we need this done in order to keep food on our tables here in this province.
Wildlife: Of course, wildlife is another big thing this year; we did get a lot
of calls on the moose licence applications because they changed to more the
online structure of moose licence applications. I don't think the government was
prepared, they sent it out there but I don't think they were really prepared to
have the moose licence gone to online applications. So we need to address all
those issues, because moose licence is very important, especially with the cost
of living right now in Central – not only Central Newfoundland, across the
province. People getting a moose licence right now, it will be a great source of
meat, no doubt, for next winter for their fridges and to help feed their
families, because that's what we're looking at here. We're looking at feeding
our families, feeding the people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
With
that, we need to speed up those processes with regard to the wildlife
applications, get those out to people so that they can get ready for next year's
hunt, without any aggravation and stipulation, because this is what this is
causing, it's just causing aggravation to the people. With the high cost of
living and then add on something like that, it just causes frustration to the
people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, again, back to the forestry, I would like to see some adjustments done.
I know this five-year plan is out, but I would like for the government probably
to look at something else in the near future to come up with a
better-diversified plan that fits everybody of the province. Not that I want to
take it away from anybody else, or any area, but if you're going to be fair, you
have to be fair.
There is
lots of timber still in Labrador, of course. There is still lots of timber on
the Northern Peninsula. I know the deal fell through with Timberlands where they
were going to do the pellet plant. There is lots of timber up there; maybe that
can be moved elsewhere so that timber can be looked after.
But,
again, those people still want to congregate on Central Newfoundland because of
the terrain. It's easier access. Up on the Northern Peninsula there are a lot
more hills, rougher terrain to get that access to the prime spruce, the black
spruce, the big spruce.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. FORSEY:
The bigger goats.
But on
the serious matter, it's something that has to be addressed. If we could get
those two – we have mining going on in Central Newfoundland and it's going to be
a big boost to us. We needed it and it's going to happen. Then if we could only
get some sort of forest industry in there with the mining industry, I think we
could build a good economic future for Central Newfoundland.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member's time is over.
We are
debating the Estimates of the Resource Sector Committee.
The next
speaker is the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me
say, it's an absolute pleasure as always to speak on the budget, and, of course,
this is just another process that we go through as part of speaking to the
budget. We've spoken to the main motion. There have been a couple of amendments
which we've spoken to and now this is where we get to sort of debate the
Estimates.
We go
through a Committee process that allows direct questions to the minister and
staff on the line-by-line items in each particular department. This is the
opportunity basically where, once that information is gathered, then Members
have an opportunity to have a more, I would say, fulsome debate with the
information and the knowledge gained from the Estimates process in the various
parts of the budget.
So,
right now, we're speaking to the Resource Sector. That would include the
Department of Environment and Climate Change; Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture; Immigration, Population Growth and Skills; Industry, Energy and
Technology; Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation. I want to say that as we get
into this portion of the debate, Mr. Speaker, it's been great to be part of this
debate thus far, and certainly I want to thank all of my colleagues for the
significant contribution that they've all made to the debate. Also, to the
Members opposite for the tremendous contribution they've made to the debate thus
far.
It's
quite clear to me as I've been sitting here in this House of Assembly that
they're very passionate about this budget and they've all spoke so eloquently to
it. Obviously, they believe in this budget and everything that's in it, which we
can tell and we glean from the fact that they've been such great supporters of
it and have spoken so often to it.
But, Mr.
Speaker, with that said, I want to concentrate on a couple of areas here. The
first thing I just wanted to mention is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
becoming difficult to hear the Member.
Thank
you.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They're
just agreeing with me that they are excited about the budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to touch on the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture for a moment. It's not something, I have to say, that I have a huge
lot of dealings with in my particular district. Members have talked at great
length about issues with Crown Lands. It's not something that I have a lot of
dealings with, but I do have dealings from time to time with constituents as it
relates to, perhaps, they're trying to acquire a property in rural Newfoundland.
Maybe it's family land that they want to build a cabin or something like that,
or a summer home in a property perhaps it was their parents' property, their
parents' land and so on. I do know that they're quite frustrated on a regular
basis when it comes to dealing with Crown Lands on these issues.
I can
only imagine if you're representing an area, like the Member for Bonavista,
where he has so many constituents that are on Crown land and dealing with Crown
Lands, it must be a nightmare for him, because I do know that for the minor
dealings I would have from time to time with constituents, they've been quite
frustrated and, quite frankly, so have I with some of the red tape and hoops
they've had to jump through.
So I do
throw that in there just to sort of concur with some of my what my colleagues
over here are saying, without the in-depth knowledge that they would have and
the dealings they would have, that it would seem to me that are issues within
Crown Lands, that government, someone really needs to do a review of how we are
dealing with people with Crown Lands and try to find ways to reduce red tape and
make it more user-friendly for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would
say that, Mr. Speaker.
Also
just on the fisheries, which again is not something that I have a lot of dealing
with. The only wharf we have in Mount Pearl is at Power's Pond. So I would say
that upfront. Although I do have some constituents that do work in the offshore
fishery that live in my district. But the fishery impacts us all. I've said in
this House of Assembly before that if you were to take a drive through Donovans
Business Park, the Kenmount industrial park and so on, you will find that there
is actually a lot business there that depends substantially on the fishery from
a supply-and-servicing point of view.
So if
anyone thinks for a second that the fishery does not have an impact on urban
parts of the province, they're sadly mistaken; they actually do. A district like
Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mount Pearl North, the St. John's districts, there are
a number of businesses, service companies, supply companies and so on which do
have direct ties and relations to our fishery. While it certainly is, as people
have termed it, the life's blood of rural Newfoundland, the fishery I think is
important to all of us. Not to mention the fact that if rural Newfoundland is
doing well, we're doing well. If we're doing well, rural Newfoundland is doing
well.
Any
industry that we have in our province, if it's going well and people are
employed, taxes are being paid and money is coming into government coffers, it's
good for all of us. So I would say that. I just wanted to point that out as
well. I know, again, the Member for Bonavista has been a great advocate for the
fisheries. I've listened to him on a number of times raising that issue. In
particular I want to sort of echo some of the comments; he's talked about seals.
That is something that we really have to get a grip on. It comes up in the House
of Assembly periodically, but there never seems to be any action on it,
unfortunately.
We talk
about the fishery and the fishery being sustainable for our province, I think it
is important that we do all we can in trying to seek our new markets for those
seal products and to lobby the federal government as well to take a more
proactive stance than they have taken to date. That is something that we could
all be working on both sides of the House of Assembly.
I'm sure
the Member for Bonavista, who is the Fisheries critic, would have no problem
whatsoever in working with the Minister of Fisheries and the Fisheries critic
with the NDP and so on or any independent Member on trying to sustain our
fishery – which is a billion-dollar resource and could be much more. Certainly
the impact, we know, that seals are having on the fishery definitely has to be
addressed. I did want to throw that out there as well.
Mr.
Speaker, another part of the Resource Sector and a department that is included
in here that I want to speak to is the Department of Industry, Energy and
Technology. I saw something in the media recently that the minister was excited,
I think it said, about the opportunities for our nickel industry with Vale and
so on. I certainly join with him that he has very exciting department because we
know that we are rich in resources in this province, whether it be oil and gas
or whether it be minerals; whether it be iron ore or whether it be nickel;
whether it be rare earth minerals. We're seeing a lot happening in Central
Newfoundland, which is so great to see.
I was
actually at the Municipalities NL symposium over the weekend and talking to a
councillor – actually, I think it was the mayor of a small town. I can't
remember exactly the name of the town, off the top of my head, but it was in the
Roddickton, Conche, that area. He was telling me that he believes there are a
lot of opportunities for rare earth minerals up there in that area as well. He
says that it is there and it is just a matter of getting it developed.
There is
no doubt,
I'm sure that he's accurate in saying that, but I think one of the key
things is – and this has been said in this House numerous times, Mr. Speaker –
that while we are rich in natural resources, one of the things that we have not
necessarily been as great at as we could be, arguably – and I know it's
debateable to some degree – is ensuring local benefits for our people. The
question always comes: Are we getting enough for our resources?
It's very easy for us to stand up in this House of
Assembly and say, you know, we should benefit more. I get that. It's quite one
thing for me to stand up in this House of Assembly and say it, and quite another
for the minister to have to sit down across a negotiation table with one of
these companies and barter out a deal that's going to be acceptable to both
sides.
So as much as we would like to have it all, it's not
always that easy. And I appreciate that, but I guess my only commentary to the
minister and to the government, which I am sure all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians would agree with, is let's make sure we get as much as is humanly
possible and, in particular, let's ensure the employment. This comes down to a
lot of what Trades NL have been talking about as an example about local benefits
agreements.
I know it's not easy to simply impose that in
negotiations. But that is what we have to be pushing for. We have to be pushing
for the local jobs, and if we have them in agreement, if we can get these things
in the form of an agreement, then it also has to be monitored and it has to be
enforced.
In the past, for example, I have heard from people in
our offshore who have told me situations where a company might set up an office,
so to speak, maybe with nobody in it or one person in it, a small office in
Newfoundland and Labrador and bid on some work in the offshore and they have a
vessel, but guess what? Everyone on that vessel is from another country, but the
office happened to be here in Newfoundland.
I'll tell you one even worse: A local company – I am
not going to name people but I thought it was shameful – owned and operated by a
Newfoundlander bidding on work in the offshore, getting the work and hiring
people from other countries on the vessel instead of his own fellow
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which I think is absolutely shameful,
personally. I won't name him. I don't know how common that is, but that was a
story I was told. I have heard that kind of thing a couple of times. It's not
good enough.
It's in
the agreement that they can't be at it, but it's like anything else, an
agreement is just simply something written on paper. Unless there's somebody
going to be monitoring what's going on and enforcing the letter of the law, when
it comes to these local benefit agreements and so on, then it's not worth the
paper it's written on.
I
believe that would fall under the C-NLOPB, I think, who is supposed to be doing
that kind of thing. But are they being as effective as they should be? I don't
know. Are they doing audits? Are they just taking their word for it and saying:
Listen, you know you have to hire Newfoundlanders? Yeah, we know. Okay, good
enough with us.
Is that
that's happening? Is there actually somebody going in on a regular basis, no
different than you do a safety audit, is there somebody with the C-NLOPB, as an
example, auditing these worksites and so on, to make sure that if the agreement
says you have to hire Newfoundlanders, that they're actually hiring
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and not simply bringing in people from outside?
Now, I
understand that there may be, from time to time, certain expertise and so on
that we may not have here. I doubt that there's a lot of it, because our people
now – we've been in this industry now for a substantial period of time and I
think we have the expertise here, locally, I really do. But there could be some
speciality things where you may have to, from time to time, bring someone in
from the outside. That should be the exception to the rule. I'm not sure that
that's always the case.
So I
would say to the minister, I, like you, am very excited about the opportunities
that we have and I suspect that we will continue to have in this province in the
mining sector, oil and gas and green energy, alternative energy, I am. I really
am. But, Minister, let's make sure – and I know you will, he's nodding his head
in agreement – that we maximize the benefits to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. That's what we have to do.
Now he's
even applauding me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
Now,
with all that said, one of the things that I was a little disappointed in when
it comes to this particular department, and in fairness to this minister, he
wasn't the minister at the time, is first of all, I definitely agree with the
fact that we no longer have NL Hydro and Nalcor. I think we reached a point
where we didn't need the two of them and we've chosen to get rid of the Nalcor.
I think that was also necessary given the black cloud that was hanging over that
company, in the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Whether it be real,
justified or not, people have their own opinions. But I think it was a good idea
to just have NL Hydro.
But when
that piece of legislation came into the House – actually it came up twice
because it was OilCo, when they separated OilCo. One of the things that I had
hoped was going to be done that didn't get done and is still not done, were
changes to the Energy Corporation Act
in terms of the protection that used to be Nalcor, now it's NL Hydro and OilCo,
receive an exemption from the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They don't have to be in
compliance with ATIPPA; they don't have to.
And it's
interesting because the former premier and a lot of the people over there were
the same people with the former premier, and I'm sure everyone can remember when
Nalcor was hiding all the consultants' costs and so on. It was a big deal in the
media. Premier Ball, at the time, was in the media and he was saying he was
getting to the bottom of it. He was going to Stan Marshall and he was getting
that information released. Guess what? It never got released and we never did
find out about the billions of dollars in taxpayers' money that got spent on
consultants and how much some of these outrageous charges were that were going
through. We never did get that information, even though Premier Ball said he was
going to make it happen. He didn't do it.
And, of
course, then this administration decided we're going to create OilCo and NL
Hydro and so on, which I agree with, I don't have a problem with. But when they
did that they never changed the legislation. So OilCo and NL Hydro can still, to
this day, hide information from the public.
Now, one
might say well, Paul, some of this information is commercially sensitive. Some
of this is legal opinions and so on. I agree. Certain information does need to
be shielded. But guess what? If this was done properly and someone was looking
for information regarding what's going on in OilCo and what's going on at NL
Hydro, they should be able to ask for the information. And if there's a
legitimate reason because of, for example, commercially sensitive information,
it should be going to the Privacy Commissioner and let him decide what
information can be released, and what information is legitimately commercially
sensitive.
Because
right now, NL Hydro and OilCo, all they got to say is commercial sensitivity.
They don't have to give a reason – they don't have to give a reason, Mr.
Speaker. If I ask for legitimate information, even if it's got nothing to do
with commercial sensitivity, all they've got to do is say commercial
sensitivity, period. No explanation, no opportunity for appeal, nothing. So they
can hide everything under the veil of commercial sensitivity.
Similar,
I might add, to how this government now is hiding everything under
client-solicitor privilege. We've seen that in the media just recently. That's
what's happening. The Privacy Commissioner has been quite clear that's what's
happening. It was never done before, but now apparently we've found a loophole
and now we're going to hide everything under that.
As
somebody – and I've said this here before, and I don't mind saying it, I don't
mind admitting a mistake. See, that's one thing about me, like me or lump me, I
don't mind saying when I was wrong.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It don't happen often.
P. LANE:
The Member said it don't
happen often; it's happened a few times. I supported Bill 29. I supported it.
You don't need to heckle it, I'll say it. I supported it because I had to toe
the party line; that was the bottom line. And I did so, no one forced me to do
it, but I did.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hoodwinked.
P. LANE:
No, I wasn't hoodwinked, knew
what was going on, but anyway, I did it. Had to support it. But Members were
over on this side showing me blacked-out pieces of paper and how terrible it
was. To the credit of Paul Davis at the time, he brought in Clyde Wells, they
developed new ATIPP legislation, told it was the best in the country and now
this government wants to go back in time and starting hiding everything all over
again (inaudible) –
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
P. LANE:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I really
appreciate the time. Lots of passion in here today it seems to be, whether it be
Question Period or our Concurrence. My personal portfolio of course –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Definitely very robust here
today, there's no doubt about it. Good to see.
Again,
my portfolio is around Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, and it's very
important, especially moving into the future, to have a sustainable, healthy
population to move forward. Because if we do not have a healthy, sustainable
population in the province, we will fail. There's no doubt about it. Our success
has always been built upon the people here in the province, and it will continue
to be contingent on the people that are here in the province.
That's
why it's great to see, of course, the Ukrainian refugees coming in today; I'm
excited for them to come in and dip those wings going into Torbay. Hopefully, it
is daylight out and they can get a good look of where they are coming. It's a
beautiful province.
Just
yesterday, myself, I took an hour or so and hiked around Signal Hill there and I
thought it was absolutely fantastic. Now if I had a suggestion for the Minister
of Tourism – I know he is listening intently, my suggestion for the minister
would be to put a defibrillator in Cabot Tower because I nearly died when I got
back.
So it
definitely took its toll on me, but it would be great to have something up
there. In all seriousness, though, it actually would be a great idea and I just
thought about it. I made a joke, but you know what? I think it is a great idea
to have something up there like that, if it is not there already.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He's writing that down.
C. TIBBS:
He has been writing on it;
that's perfect.
We were
happy to see the Ukrainian refugees come in, but how do we keep newcomers here?
I think that's going to be the biggest issue right here. You know, it is great
to get people to come in here, show them what we can offer but at the same time
we need to keep our newcomers right here, as well as the people who have been
here their whole lives. I think that if we can get a handle on that, it
encompasses so much within the province. If we can make this province
attractable enough to have people come here and stay here, well, by God, I bet
you that 75 per cent of the battle is taken care of on its own right there.
But when
people come in here, they are going to look at our health care. Health care has
been a big issue. Health care has been a big issue because there are so many
people that are suffering within our health care system. Again, we all recognize
this did not happen overnight. We all recognize this was not on one person. I am
not going to stand here and play politics and say that but, at the same time,
something needs to be done.
When
people are sat home with cancer or with something that they are diagnosed with
and they have to sit there and wait for an appointment and wait and wait and
wait and then have appointments cancelled. By God, you know, I am sure some of
us here have gone through it, but it must be absolutely debilitating to them and
their family. You think about it – I am very fortunate, knock on wood and for
the rest of us, too, that I haven't had to deal with anything like that yet or
anybody in my immediate family. But to sit there and you can imagine how long
those days are, the weeks are, waiting to get an appointment or to see an
oncologist or a specialist. You know that Preston up in Ottawa had his surgery
and he waited so long. He waited 28 days before he could get his surgery. Do you
know what? That's not good enough. We need to do better and I know we can do
better if we all work together and try to come up with a solution that works for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
My
colleague from Terra Nova said it many times. What works for Newfoundland and
Labrador might not work for another Atlantic province, in the Maritimes or out
West. We need to find something that is right here and we continue to compare
our issues to other provinces across Canada, other countries around the world
but when we come up with different solutions, like Alberta doing something with
their gas tax, well, then we're not comparable anymore.
And that
doesn't work; it can't be both ways. We need to ensure that we get a good handle
on the cost of living for people. The economic drivers here in Newfoundland and
Labrador are going to be something else that's going to keep people here. You
know, I've been across the country, probably more than most. I've lived in many
parts of the country; I've worked in many parts of the country. We see the
mining sector; it's absolutely fantastic. But there has to be high-paying jobs
in Newfoundland and Labrador, good-paying jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
At one
time, minimum wage could let you sail on through, depending on your life
circumstances, but not anymore. It's impossible. It's literally impossible. So
you're waiting for the straw that broke the camel's back. Well, by God, that
poor camel must be on his knees. Because we are absolutely at a breaking point
here in Newfoundland and Labrador. And I don't know if gas is going up again
this week – it's terrible news for the province; it's terrible news for those
people that are working minimum-wage jobs or just above. These people have
families. They have children and they've got to try to take care of them. Again,
it's debilitating to the people that are trying to get through it and there
doesn't seem to be any end in sight.
It comes
back to this budget once again; what does it do for the moms and dads that are
out there trying their best, working 50-60 hours a week and still can't get
ahead, for the most vulnerable, for our seniors? There's not a whole lot of
change. I've seen the change now in two different budget the word “change” –
nothing's changing. Nothing is fundamentally changing.
I'm not
talking about small changes; it's great what we did with the motor vehicle
registration, to cut that in half. It's good, but it's a minimal change. We need
radical change here in order to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is
going to be sustainable in the future.
Food
sustainability: We just talked about farmers across the province. By God, we
should be doing everything in our power to help contribute to any farmer in this
province that is looking to take it on or continue their operation. They're
going to be hurting bad. I've worked through Saskatchewan, Alberta, a lot of the
guys I worked on the rig with were farmers in their off-time or whatever.
Farmers have had it hard throughout Canada for quite some time, so it's not an
easy thing to get into, but to think about what it's going to pay out in years
to come, in generations to come – food sustainability.
I'm not
sure how much food we produce here on the Island ourselves. It's like 8 per
cent. It's a very small amount. But imagine if we could get down to 30 or 40 per
cent of our own food, right here on the Island or in the Big Land, my God that
would be absolutely amazing.
I know
we can do it, but the supports must be there, and we need to listen to the
farmers. I don't know if there are any farmers in here; there's probably not. I
guarantee you there's probably not, but the farmers that are out there in the
province, we need to listen to the experts. They are the experts. What they need
is what they should be getting. All the supports should be there.
The
infrastructure throughout the province – the long-term care centre Grand
Falls-Windsor, we pray to God that's open in a couple of weeks. I truly do. I
know the minister wants it open, too. I'm sure he does. But I just had an
89-year-old man who was guaranteed one of the first spots in the home. He was
told we're going to get you in the home as soon as it opens. He left for Harbour
Breton last week from Grand Falls-Windsor, and he's been living in Grand
Falls-Windsor his entire life. Now he's gone to Harbour Breton and that's where
his family have to visit him.
That's
shameful. That can't go on like that. It's very hard on him and it's very hard
on his family, so we need to ensure that that gets straightened away and we get
some people in this new home. We're all excited about it. Let's get them in
there. But when it comes to transparency, if something comes up and it's going
to be four weeks down the road, not a week, say, four weeks, let's deal with it.
But that communication needs to be open.
Housing:
There's a huge issue with housing here in the province, and I'm telling you
first-hand, one of those issues is the landlord tenancies act. I'm sure that,
throughout COVID, there's been some grey areas and stuff, but I have a person in
Grand Falls-Windsor, a landlord, who hasn't been paid rent since October. He had
to wait to get his hearing. Last month, he finally got his hearing and, through
all the jigs and the reels, and the Sheriff's Office, that person is still in
his home. That's eight months ago.
Now,
when this person does finally get the tenant evicted, for not paying rent for
eight months – I empathize with the tenants as well because it can't be easy on
them. I'm sure there has to be some wiggle room in there, but eight months and
beating up places and stuff like that – one of the reasons why we have a housing
problem in this province is because nobody wants to rent out their places
anymore. They don't want to do it. It's too much of a hassle.
So this
man right here, he has two rentals. He's taking them back and he's selling them.
There will be no more rentals. So when you have 100, 200 people throughout our
district waiting for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, that's going to be an
issue, because there's no other places to rent and, unfortunately, that's the
way it is. So if we need to look at the legislation and do something there,
that's something else that we should look at as well.
In order
to grow our population, we must make this province, again, attractable for many
people. As we set noble, important goals to increase our immigration, we will
not achieve healthy population numbers if we don't convince Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who were born here as well, spent their whole lives here, to stay
here. I think we're going to see more mass exodus in the future. I hope not.
I hope
we give them something to stay home for, but the fact of the matter is there are
shutdown jobs out West right now that they can't find people there. They can't
shut down plants because they can't find enough people, and those jobs are
starting at about $300 a day. You know what? That's something that is very
attractive out there. It is going to convince people to pick up, move away, and
that's what we're trying to avoid. We want to ensure we keep those people right
here.
We talk
about rotational workers. I have stood here many, many times and everybody knows
my background; I'm not going to go over it again. But the rotational workers are
so vital to this province. I'm not sure what the number is; we've heard up to
18,000, 20,000 rotational workers. Can you imagine if all these people got wise
and said I'm going to head on back up to Alberta because I don't need to pay for
a plane ticket? I don't need to go back and forth; the health care system might
be better. If that starts to happen and we see a trend, by God, not only can you
say bye-bye to our sustainable population, but that is a huge influx of money
right here. Those people are not making $15 an hour; there is nobody going away
for any less than $80,000 or $100,000 a year and just about every cent of that
comes back to our Newfoundland and Labrador economy.
I want
to ensure rotational workers that we are with you; we appreciate everything you
do. We know it can be easier in certain ways but you love this province just as
much as I do, just as much as all of us in this House and we thank you an we
applaud you for staying right here in Newfoundland and Labrador because we need
you and we need your families. So I'll say that about rotational workers.
We're
the highest tax across the country. Again, when you look at Alberta's tax, I
think it is at 7 per cent or something like that right now. When you go out and
buy a vehicle or a house or anything else, that is a big difference. That is an
absolute huge difference. If we can do something about the taxes on gasoline,
absolutely it would be great to try to knock that down a little bit.
We
touched on Crown land earlier. I will be talking to the minister about a few
issues. I'm going to talk about it right now and, in fairness to the minister, I
haven't spoken to him about it yet. Also, he has always responded and he has
always gotten back to me every single time I've ever reached out to him, and I
thank him for that.
Crown
lands: I have a fellow in my district right now; he's had a cabin on a lakefront
since 1981. Now they are asking him to move it; he's poisoned. He is absolutely
poisoned. Why am I staying here are his exact words. So he just wants to sell it
and move out of the province. He does. So we'll talk about that anyway.
The
Crown lands, once again we've talked about it previously. I think that we need
some more legislation. I think that we need to really sit down, look at the
legislation and ask ourselves how do we help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Because that's asked enough when it comes to these decisions.
Now,
this House of Assembly is going to sit for probably next week and that might be
it. Another record low number of days for us to sit. Hopefully we sit longer,
but how there isn't more legislation not coming from across the way to help
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is beyond me.
We have
lots of ideas over here. I would love to work with some of the departments and
introduce some of the legislation that we see that could help Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. I'm sure you see it over there, too. But to have record low
number of days – and that's what we're probably going to gear up for, not like
it used to be 10 years ago. But we're going to have a record low number of days
sitting here trying to help the people of the province. That's not good enough.
It's not good enough at all.
Let's
come up with some real hard-core legislation that can help the people. It might
be something simple, but I'm just asking that you look through your departments,
find out what can help the people of the province. Because never forget, we work
for them, not the other way around.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
The worst part about all
this, Speaker, is – I'm going to call it gaslighting – the ability or the energy
put into certain people trying to normalize the way Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are struggling right now. And it's done through such an array of
ways. It's that way throughout all the rest of Canada. It's that way throughout
the world. And eventually it gets trickled out of the news and you don't even
see it anymore. But it's not normal.
I'm here
to tell the people of the province today the way you are suffering, the way we
are living, the way we are just surviving, it is not normal. It is completely
not normal. And this is not a full knock against government; it is not at all. I
promise you it's not, because I know you all over there are working so hard and
you're just as passionate as I am, you truly are. But at the end of the day, we
have to stop normalizing this process.
To say
our health care is not in crisis, it's wrong to say that, because it is in
crisis. It may not be in crisis sat here today with lots of energy, feeling
good, not having to worry about a doctor's appointment coming up, or an
oncologist appointment, or a cardiologist appointment. But we have to stop
normalizing this. It's not normal for the people that truly are suffering, that
are trying to depend on our health care system that has failed them.
Now,
that's not a knock on the people that work in our health care. We all have
families, friends and neighbours throughout our districts, my God – and I know
we say it over and over again, but it can't be said enough. The nurses, the
doctors, the support staff who are putting in those extra hours, that are
working overtime 16 hours a day – the sacrifice is huge. They're spending time
away from their families. Throughout COVID they were always on the front lines.
My God, you can imagine their frustration. They are getting frustrated. They do
not have the supports they need to continue.
You're
seeing more and more nurses go back to casual because they just don't want the
pressures of coming in and working the overtime that they must. Do you know
what? The doctors that are here, same thing. We have a doctor in our district,
Lynette Powell who has spoken out, and God bless her, she has taken up the
advocacy for most doctors, and we thank her very much for her advocacy. We know
it's an uphill battle for a lot of health care workers, but we are there to help
and do whatever we can.
Bay du
Nord: Do you know what? The mining is great here in the province, but I think
about Bay du Nord and I don't know if the question has been asked yet, and I
definitely don't think an answer has been given. What is the future of oil and
gas in Newfoundland and Labrador? Are we going to go after projects in 2025,
2028, 2030? Are there going to be new projects?
Our LNG,
the world seems to be moving towards the LNG projects and it's great. So that
would be my question. I really want to know: Was there any horse-trading done
with Bay du Nord? Are we giving up more than we're getting? These questions need
to be asked and they need to be answered. I would like an answer within this
year – immediately.
If this
is the death of oil and gas, than say it so we can pivot and move on from there.
But it shouldn't be, because Newfoundland and Labrador oil and gas, some of the
best oil and gas and oil and gas workers on this planet and we're going to need
it for quite some time. I'm not ready to give up on it. Ottawa is not going to
dictate whether we give up on oil and gas or not. We're going to take our future
in our own hands and we'll decide when we give up on oil and gas, not anybody
else, and that's exactly the attitude, I believe, we should have.
I'll
touch on mental health for one moment. I try to talk about it every time I'm up
here. Mental health throughout the province, of course, we see it. It's in a
spiral like you wouldn't believe, but there are all kinds of little things. When
you're in a province that is – like I say the cost of living is gone up. The
people's pay hasn't gone anywhere, but the cost of living has definitely gone
up, that creates problems in the household with your husband, with your wife,
with the kids. Now you're fighting and arguing more.
Addictions: I would like to see numbers on addictions; gambling addictions,
marijuana addictions, alcohol addictions. Were have they gone in the past two
years? Where are they going now? These are some of the fundamental questions
that need to be asked so we can get a handle on them, because that's not going
to help our mental health at all either.
Speaker,
I'm going to take the last moment and talk about the Premier's office in Grand
Falls-Windsor, which we all agree over on this side we don't want it; we don't
need it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money at this time. But I want to make one
thing very clear before I sit down. The person who they have hired on who we've
referred to in the past, it is not his fault. It truly isn't. This is the
Premier spending taxpayers' dollars for an office that is not warranted.
I know
the person, we all know the person who has been hired on to do this. Right now,
he is a public citizen. His wife, her name is Jennifer. She is a public citizen.
She is a doctor in Grand Falls-Windsor who has given years of her life to the
service of Grand Falls-Windsor as an OB/GYN. We are very lucky to have her. I've
seen some things on social media calling out the family. I'm asking my
constituents to stop that, please. This is a private family, they deserve better
than that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for that, families shouldn't be
brought into it. I agree and I support the Member on that call for all people to
keep the families out of this political realm. That's a great gesture to do
because families, they didn't get elected, it was us people here in the House of
Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to speak on what they call the Resource Committee and I'm
going to go through each department.
The
first department here is Environment and Climate Change. That is for everybody
in the province. This is a big issue now, climate change, for all of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see erosions on a lot of land. We see
a lot of heavier tides and other things. There are a lot of issues in the
District of Corner Brook and Humber - Bay of Islands that we deal with the
Department of Environment and Climate Change on. I have to say the working
relationship is good.
When you
bring an issue to the minister, to the department, the working relationship is
good. They do look into it, they do try to do what they can and help mitigate,
if there's any problem there. I just want to recognize that to the minister and
to the staff, sometimes you may not get the answer you want, but at least you
can address the reason why things can't be done.
Environment and Climate Change is a big issue. We're all well aware of it all
across Canada, all across the world. If we can do our own little bit here in
Newfoundland and Labrador – and we see climate change, the effect it has on
municipalities, on our roads. We see how climate change is affecting things. We
see a lot of times when it happens in a town and we have to go to the department
to look for guidance and the department is there to help. I know many times that
I asked the minister to look into a few things and he did. And then he's
concerned and going back and giving the answer. Sometimes we may disagree on the
answer and he'll explain why, but the department is very open to helping when
there are issues and I just want to recognize that to the department.
The next
one, Mr. Speaker, in part of the Resource Committee – there's five departments
under it – is Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. I'm going to talk about the
District of Humber - Bay of Islands in this speech, Mr. Speaker. You look at the
Fisheries Department. Right now, there are three fish plants in Humber - Bay of
Islands: Curling, Benoit's Cove and Cox's Cove. It's a huge employer. The
harvesters and then the fish plant workers. I would say close to 800 to 1,000
people in the Humber - Bay of Islands are in the fishery. This is where we need
the support of the government.
We look
at Corner Brook, which Curling is a part of Corner Brook, and we say well,
that's not big in the fishery, but it is. It is.
I know
Bill Barry and the Barry Group sometimes over the years, you have your
discussions and you have your differences of opinion, but they create a lot of
employment in Humber - Bay of Islands. There would be a lot of people moving
away if the fisheries wasn't so prominent in Humber - Bay of Islands.
I know
that the Barry Group itself does have a good relationship with the government,
which is great, and I know Bill has a relationship with the minister and others,
which is good.
When you
drive by – just last Saturday I went down to a senior's dinner down in Lark
Harbour and on the way down you pass the fish plant. It was on a Saturday, you
pass the fish plant in Benoit's Cove and the parking lot is blocked with
workers. They actually had to make more parking space for the workers, for the
fisheries in Humber - Bay of Islands.
I've got
to recognize the workers in Humber - Bay of Islands who work in the fisheries.
The Barry Group owns three of the plants; they're creating a lot of employment.
They're expanding, they're hoping for the redfish; hoping they're going to get a
quota off the redfish when it's put out through the Qalipu. The Qalipu supports
the fisheries in Humber - Bay of Islands because a lot of Qalipu members work at
the plants, their members in Humber - Bay of Islands and their spouses.
So the
fishery is very big in Humber - Bay of Islands and I encourage the minister,
which he has, to help promote any way possible for the redfish for the Humber -
Bay of Islands because it would be a big employer.
The
biomass is getting larger; the fish is getting larger so the next year and a
half or two years there's going to be a big supply of redfish. I know they're
out looking for markets as we speak, looking for markets for the redfish all
across the world. So I ask the minister to keep that with you so that you can
keep an eye open if you're speaking to your federal counterpart about the
redfish quota for the Humber - Bay of Islands because it's fairly big.
The
second part of that department is Forestry. Once again, forestry is big in the
Humber - Bay of Islands. Kruger, very big, very big and it has been for a number
of years going back in the early '20s, '30s. It's been very big. My father
worked there, my family worked there; I worked there. There is not as much
employment now through technology and other things, but it's a big industry. Not
only for the Corner Brook area, but for a lot of people who are wood suppliers
out in Central, that way, the Baie Verte area, the Central way. They bring a lot
of wood to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and there are a lot of spinoff jobs
through the sawmill industry, because of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.
Again,
that's the minister's department and I'm sure that will be front and centre for
him because Kruger is a big employer, not just in Corner Brook but through
Central Newfoundland also.
Down on
the Northern Peninsula, is there some way that we could find some way to use the
resources on the Northern Peninsula? It's a lot of resources; I don't have the
answers. I know there were a few pellet plants going to look at being set up.
They weren't set up, but I was looking if there is any way for the Northern
Peninsula – because they're great people. The industries are scarce down there.
The fishery is big, but if there is any way for the forestry, not just for
Corner Brook. I look at the Northern Peninsula as a great area that you can
create a lot of employment.
There
are a lot of other smaller forest industries in Humber - Bay of Islands, in
around the area. It's a big industry. It's a big industry for the Humber - Bay
of Islands, the forestry part. I know the minister is over there taking notes of
this. I ask the minister that keep that in mind also, because it's very
important for the whole Corner Brook and the Humber - Bay of Islands.
The
third part that is part of the minister's part is agriculture. I know that
they're trying to get some sustainability of food over the years. I know there
was 127 acres of land put out for Crown land for the agriculture industry to try
to promote agriculture the last number of years. There were so many acres, 127
acres, I'm not sure of the exact amount, but it was a huge amount of land put
out for agriculture and sustainability.
The
people in the agriculture industry work hard. They work hard day and night.
That's all they do. I know the minister is working with the association to try
to help promote and have food security in the area.
So
agriculture is big. Just that department alone affects the Humbler - Bay of
Islands so much, Mr. Speaker. Of course, with the Fishery, Forestry and
Agriculture, it is a big employer. Those three combined is a big employer for
the Corner Brook, Humber region and in the Bay of Islands itself.
I know,
myself, just as a hobby with my wife, we do a small bit of farming. I see the
hard work that goes into it. God bless the commercial people because they have
to spend day and night and they have to depend so much on the weather. We should
do whatever we can to support them. I know there's money there for equipment and
machinery.
The
other thing under this department is – I heard a Member speak about it earlier
today – Crown lands. It is a tough file. It is easy for me to stand here and
criticize and talk about what could be done or should be done. I had the
opportunity; I was there. We were moving forward, some things changed and some
things never. But I can tell you, it's a tangly file.
Crown
Lands is a tangly file. There are some that can be resolved. I'll just give you
one easy example where you need people to step in and say, yeah, we can get
this. I'll just give an example.
There
was a person who was applying to buy the piece of land that they were on. They
went and got the quote; an appraiser came in and gave them the quote. So when
the appraiser came in and gave them the quote, the quote was double the land
next. So I went up and I said: Okay, we got to have a meeting on this. We had a
meeting and they said: Okay, yeah, you're right. We made a mistake on that. Now
appeal it. I said: Guys, you made the mistake, why don't you just fix it? Oh no.
This person had to go ahead and appeal it.
So when
the person appealed it, they got the letter back, there was a $1,000 fine next
to it. I said: What's the fine for? They said: Well, he built a little shed next
door to put his lawn mower in in the winter and his snow blower in the
summertime. I said: Didn't you check out the land? They said: Yeah, he's on
Crown land. I said: Let's look at this. His son owned the land next to him, so
immediately saying that you are on Crown land, not checking it out to see if
someone owned the land. It was his son's land but because a picture showed a
shed next to a piece of Crown land, he got a $1,000 fine.
They
removed the fine, but this is the smaller things that I say to the minister that
we discussed that sometimes people have to take their time and give people the
benefit of the doubt.
I heard
the minister earlier, and I heard the Member from Bonavista, talk about some
issues about land that is caught up in the families. That is so true. That is so
true; there is a history of that all over the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. There is a history of when you put the application in and then some
distant family member says, no, that's my land. What does the department do? I
was in that position.
There
are things that can be done with Crown lands. I know the minister is working on
it and we had discussions on it. They did have some issues and a lot of the
smaller issues that we have on Crown lands can be resolved. Some of the more
tangly issues when it comes to family, it takes a lot of time and energy, if it
can be done. I can assure you of that. I encourage the minister to move forward
on some of that and some of the initiatives that you're doing.
I have
to say, Mr. Speaker, before I go, there are some issues that I brought to the
minister's attention, I may not have gotten the answer I wanted but they were
looked at and I got to recognize that. You may not get the answers, some you do,
some you don't because you may come back with information that you didn't know,
but at least I got answers. Once you get answers, you can explain to people,
that's what people are asking for. I just want to recognize that to the minister
also.
The next
one in the Resource Committee is the Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
That is a very important department in the government. If you look back, I
remember Don Mills came in years back and they gave the government a little
overview. The growth of the economy in PEI was higher than anybody. The
population growth was higher than anybody. He equates it to – and he did – if
the population growth increases, your economy will increase.
That's
why that department is so important; it's an important department. If we can get
people to move to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, find some way to
keep them in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; the evaluation that was
done over the years is that once your population increases, your economy will
increase also.
That is
very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very
important department, it is. It takes time to make a plan. You can't expect
everybody to come in – but once they come here, we need to find some way to keep
people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need the employment. We need the skills.
We need the training. This is where this department is hand in glove for people
coming in.
I also
want to recognize the people who are coming in from Ukraine tonight. I have to
recognize that because that is a tough environment to be in. I just think about
us here. I always put the example to try to make it – here we are having an
argument sometimes, we get mad at each other. Just imagine, we're in this
Assembly here today and we don't know if there is going to be a guided missile
come through. Just think about how they live. Just think about if we all lived
in the basement here wondering if there is a guided missile coming through.
I have
to applaud everybody who's involved with helping these people to come over, to
give them some sense of normality; let them see the spirit of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I want
to also recognize, I say to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, there's
a group out in Stephenville who took it upon – the Stephenville - Port au Port
area and the Bay St. George area – themselves to start raising some funds just
in case that people that come to Stephenville – the largest Ukrainian population
is in Stephenville, that area. They had connections. They have people who can
speak the Ukrainian language, and they raised over – and they're still going –
$32,000 to help any extra when people come from Ukraine.
The
Member for Stephenville- Port au Port and the Member for St. George's - Humber,
he was talking to the people also. This is non-political. This is a bunch got
together, because some of the people that employed one of the ladies who was
from Ukraine. They said: What can we do? They started out, the Town of
Stephenville, Tom Rose and the councillors, congratulations, the first
fundraiser that they had, they matched it, the Town of Stephenville.
It's a
whole community, the whole region out in Stephenville, Bay St. George area, Port
au Port area all came together and it's $32,000 and rising.
Mr.
Speaker, here's the good news, there's a guy driving out today or tomorrow, he's
taking a mother and two kids to Stephenville. The person that started this, they
started it for this person, her mother got out of Ukraine and is going to
Stephenville to live with her daughter; living with her daughter in
Stephenville.
One of
the other people from Stephenville whose mother was trying to get out, got shot
at. They had a motorcade, they got shot at and they had to turn around. Couldn't
get her out.
To the
committee in Stephenville that raised that money, let me tell you, great job.
Great job taking it upon yourself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
Roland and the crew, a bunch
of ragtags – Roland called them a bunch of ragtags – got together and raised a
few dollars, the next thing you know it exploded and everybody jumped on board.
The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, I hate to say it, I hate to
point you out, but he gave a donation also to help out the people in Ukraine. He
jumped out.
Now, I
tell you, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port was heavily involved with
it also. So everybody that reached out on this project, helped out. There are
people going to Stephenville. Thanks everybody, Roland and the committee, you
did a great job.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to speak about Industry, Energy and Technology next. We all
know about the bigger projects that are happening in the province in the oil and
gas industry. But I have to reach out to the minister.
There's
Copper Mine Brook, they're doing some exploration down in Copper Mine Brook and
there was a bit of an issue with the permits. I went to the minister and I said,
look, they're bringing in $8 million or $10 million for the next six or seven
months to continue on. The minister got involved with it and so did the minister
responsible for Crown Lands got involved to help out and the project is going to
continue. They have one find, I think, and they're waiting, they're still doing
it.
So
they're going to be spending $6 million to $10 million looking for minerals in
Copper Mine Brook, creating local jobs, staying right in the Lark Harbour area;
local people, great for the economy, great for employment. If they happen to
make another find or if they already have one large enough, they'll create a
commercial operation.
So I
have to recognize the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology and the
minister responsible for Crown Lands who jumped in to ensure that this is moving
ahead for Humber - Bay of Islands.
Mr.
Speaker, the last one I'm going to speak about in this Resource Committee is
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation. Tourism is a big sector for all of us and
we see Come Home Year. I hope it's going to be a success in the Come Home Year.
A lot of people are celebrating. I don't know how many people are going to be
coming home, but we have to recognize that also, the tourism industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is
one thing I would say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation
is that we hear so much here, and we hear from the report from Dr. Parfrey and
Sister Elizabeth Davis, that we have to start changing people's actions. So I
say to the Minister of Recreation if there's some way to start putting money
into recreation where we can get more people more active. It's tough to do,
because we have to change the lifestyle, have to change your mindset, we have to
ensure kids can get to events and things. Summertime is pretty good. Wintertime
is when there's a problem for that. So recreation in this department is very
important to change.
Tourism,
I hope we have a great year. I know a lot of tourism operators out on the West
Coast; they're looking for a great year. We need a great year.
I see my
time is up, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your attention.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy
Government House Leader, that
this House do now recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This House do stand adjourned until 6 p.m.
May 9, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 50A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
House
Leaders ready?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Concurrence on the Resource Committee.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
He's a much better Cabinet
Minister than he is House Leader.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's a compliment.
L. PARROTT:
Take it the right way.
It's
always an honour to stand and talk on behalf of the people of Terra Nova and
certainly the province. When we talk about the Resource Committee, I would say
most Cabinet positions, they're not all equal, and two Cabinet Ministers in the
Resource Committee got an enviable post, I would think. That's Tourism, Culture,
Arts and Recreation and Industry, Energy and Technology. It's a pretty exciting
time to be involved in either one of those departments.
Not to
say that the fiscal environment out there reflects that, but the reality of it
is, is that between our mining sector, the recent announcement on Bay du Nord,
the new legislation on wind energy, the future looks bright certainly for
Industry, Energy and Technology and, obviously, the steps that we're taking
towards green energy is huge.
The same
thing goes for Tourism. One of the larger portfolios in the province with regard
to what it does for the economy; they've had a rough couple of years, but it
looks like with Come Home Year, some investment in, certainly, cultural areas,
it looks like they're on the rebound. Two great departments.
I'll
take a bit of time and I'm just going to go through some of the departments and
add some input that I have. The first thing I'd say, I'd like to talk about
Industry, Energy and Technology. I will start off by commending the minister
responsible for bringing Bay du Nord across the finish line, but there's still a
lot of work to be done. Obviously, he and I agree on this. It's okay to say that
the project is sanctioned and it may move forward; what we got to start doing
now is making sure that work carries out here.
The
initial agreement allotted for 5,000 metric tons, and most people don't
understand what that means, but 5,000 metric tons simply equals almost nothing.
We need way more than that, right. So we ought to be looking for the mechanical
outfitting to be completed here; we ought to be looking for a lot of the
construction to be carried out here; and we really, really need to be employing
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first on this project.
The
5,000 metric tons probably equals some of the chains and anchors, maybe a
helideck, flair boom and one or two lifeboat stations. The reality is that there
is a substantial amount of other work that has to happen. Now, I fully agree
when people say the hull can't be done here and the hull cannot be done here.
But much like the Terra Nova, the hull
can be done and brought here and fit out here. There is no reason why we
shouldn't be doing that work; we have the men and women in this province that
are capable of doing that work. We have the knowledge, and it is knowledge, I
will say, that this government worked very hard on, and the previous government,
to make sure we had, both with female apprentice programs and apprenticeship
programs for our own men and women.
Now, in
2019, first when I came to this House, I had the honour to stand up to present a
private Member's motion on Newfoundland and Labrador first – 2019. Here we are
in 2022 and to my knowledge we're no further ahead. I would say that the
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, in his mandate letter it says
that is his responsibility. A couple of weeks ago I talked to the building
trades and I do know, up until that point, they had not heard from him. That's
just not good enough, not with a project like this coming online. It is
extremely important that we get a Newfoundland and Labrador benefits package.
E. LOVELESS:
Who were you talking to?
L. PARROTT:
Pardon me?
E. LOVELESS:
Who were you talking to?
L. PARROTT:
I'll tell you after. We can
talk after.
At that
point, like I said, they said that they hadn't been approached by the minister.
When we
look at projects that happen in this province, we overlook some stuff, right. So
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology talked about Voisey's Bay last
week, and he has a right to be bullish on Voisey's Bay. The agreement that is
signed with Tesla is great for this province; it is great for the men and women
that work there. What I will say about Voisey's Bay that dismays me is that if
you ever get the opportunity to visit and you look around, you will quickly see
that almost every licence plate up there is a Quebec licence plate. It is
absolutely ridiculous. We could not go in to Quebec and do the same thing as
Newfoundlanders. It is long overdue for that to end.
The
other thing I'll say is that when the
Umiak comes down with her product and she dumps it off in Long Harbour, her
next stop is Quebec City. All the goods and services that go into Voisey's Bay
come out of Quebec. Again, something that we would not be able to do, which
makes no sense and government has the ability to intervene in that. I'd be
curious to know what kind of taxes they pay, how they work all of that, but the
reality of it is that is does not benefit us and it benefits Quebec in a big
way.
So when
you have contractors coming in and they are utilizing their own vehicles or you
have site service vehicles that are up there and they are all out of Quebec,
think of the registrations, the insurance, all of that money that should be
coming into provincial coffers, it just doesn't happen. I believe that if
someone was to look into the act you would find that if a vehicle comes to
Newfoundland from another province for any duration, they have two weeks, I
believe, in order to switch the plates and the registration and everything over.
These vehicles have been up their forever. It should be the same. It should be
the same. They should be registered in Newfoundland, insured in Newfoundland and
we should be reaping the benefits for a project and a site that is right here in
Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Where would the fuel be bought?
L. PARROTT:
All from Quebec. The fuel all comes from Quebec. As a matter of fact, I believe,
all of the fuel for the three thermal generation plants also comes from Quebec.
Now
there is an exciting bit of news out of Voisey's Bay and that is the idea of
wind generation up there. So very exciting that they have the opportunity to do
it. My understanding is that it will equal somewhere between 12 and 13 per cent
of total power generated. It's a substantial project. When that project goes
forward, that should put into perspective exactly what it takes to make wind
work because, you know, it's a fairly large project and it is still only going
to account for 12 to 13 per cent of the required power up there.
But make
no mistake about it, Voisey's Bay is a great project, certainly, with the
extension that is currently happening right now. It is employing lots of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it's going to add life on to that project,
which is huge; very important because we need all of the work that we can get
here.
Bay
du Nord is a seriously good first step here for Newfoundland and Labrador, but
it creates a lot of questions. I questioned from day one what we are trading
off. Now government says we are not trading off anything, but with the
rebranding of NOIA; the rebranding of the C-NLOPB, all suspect, all right around
the same time; the delay in seismic; the delay in the land sales, it all creates
a lot of questions.
Now, all of those questions seemed to be answered by the minister, up until the
federal minister of Environment spoke out. When the federal minister of
Environment spoke out and he started talking about regulations and how it would
be tough to get another project, it set off an alarm in my head which really
should not have been set off because we sat here in 2019 and debated federal
legislation, the new legislation for regulations for offshore work. It was four
separate bills. And this government was bullish on it. They stood up and they
said this is the greatest legislation that ever come about. It is going to
reduce the regulatory period from 900 days down to months. It's going to allow
our oil and gas to succeed and excel; it highlighted
Advance 2030. All we heard was all
about what the former government done.
It
is funny how the Environment Minister is over there chatting. We never heard him
say a word during Bay du Nord.
Minister
Guilbeault stood up last week and he said: It will be extremely hard, under this
new legislation, for any other oil and gas projects to get sanctioned. Now we
heard in this House, over a long debate, that the new legislation would make it
much easier. It was this government that told us that, especially the former
minister, current Deputy Premier, stood up and touted this legislation, how it
was the greatest thing ever. Now we're being told that this great legislation is
the very legislation that's going to handcuff us.
We
haven't heard anything from government, but, obviously, we will know where we
stand with regard to our oil and gas. I would suspect some time in the next two
or three months, if our land sales don't get sanctioned, if we don't move
forward with that, if there's not a plan to move forward with seismic, if we
don't push forward with the LNG at Grassy Point, all of the things that we need
in order to make our oil and gas industry successful; if we don't see any of
those things, the needle move on any of them, then we'll know that government
sold out. I suspect we'll know that before the end of this summer. I suspect we
already know the answer, but we'll find out, I guess, in a couple of months. The
reality is we should not have given anything up for Bay du Nord to move forward.
Labrador
West, so we hear our colleague from the NDP – who doesn't support oil for the
record – talk about Labrador West, certainly the seniors' problems and
everything else that's going on up there. But the reality of it is that the
royalties that have come from IOC, Wabush Mines and Tacora, and certainly the
tax money that is coming from the individuals that have worked up there since
the early '60s, ought to have brought Labrador West much further than it is.
We
shouldn't hear about seniors – actually, last week, if you watched the news,
there was a minister from, I believe, the Anglican Church, I'm not sure, but he
came on and he was very clear that seniors in Labrador West are afraid to go
visit their doctors. Afraid to go to the doctor because they're afraid that they
may be put into long-term care and they'd be shipped out of there. Imagine being
afraid to go see your doctor if you're not feeling well. That's exactly what
they're saying.
B. DAVIS:
That's fear mongering.
L. PARROTT:
Give us the definition of
fear mongering there, Minister of Environment. We can hear you pretty clear over
here; speak up. The truth doesn't matter sometimes to you either.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
When a senior is any part of
the province is afraid to go see their doctor because they're afraid that they
may be shipped somewhere, that's not fear mongering. That's a reality. I suspect
that if the Minister of Environment had an opportunity to talk to my father
before he passed away, he would have found out it is real. I suspect if someone
from that government took the time to call Cheryl Hardy's daughter, Angela,
they'd find out that her situation is real. I suspect if they took the time to
call the minister who was on the news last week to find out exactly what he was
talking about, when he's talking about his parishioners coming in saying that
they have real fear, he'd clearly understand that this isn't fear mongering.
It's simply stating the facts – simply stating the facts.
Mr.
Speaker, the Resource Committee is very encompassing of a lot of different
things, so the next thing I'd like to talk about, just touch on, is the fishery.
So throughout my district the fishery is fairly large. I have multiple fish
plants and we fish most species. A very lucrative fishery and it's working very
well. There are lots of things that happen that don't work well, as we talked
about last week, certainly these trip quotas and things with the crab. There are
lots of questions about trip quotas when we're actually shipping crab in to be
processed and we're telling our own fishermen that they can't get their crab
processed.
I
understand why the unions would be asking questions. Certainly, the reality of
it is, they want to get their quotas caught but they're getting turned away at
the wharf because they either have too much product or there's product coming
from another province. At the end of the day, we ought to be looking after our
own resources first and at every opportunity, whether it be in the fishery, or
logging, or oil and gas, or mining; we ought to be trying to do the secondary
processing here as much as we can. Crab is a great example; secondary processing
should be happening here on a regular basis.
The
other thing that we always see about the fishery is the sustainability of a cod
plant, a cod fishery. Now, we understood what happened when the war happened in
Russia, we had one of our plants here have to look for a different product; they
had to go to a different location in the world in order to get enough cod to
keep the plant running on an almost-annual basis. We have a great resource here;
we just have got to find a way that we utilize it the right way. And part of
that is to make sure that we regulate how cod is fished, so we've got quota
going into that plant on an annual basis. Too much all at once doesn't do anyone
any favours, from the offshore or inshore or mid-shore.
Wind
power and solar power – and it's great to see the legislation just changed on
wind power. It's an exciting time in the world and we all understand that we
have to transition into a green economy. I would say, as a father of two young
children, 16 and 14, as much as I tout oil and gas, I believe that our green
future is one of the most important things that we need to be looking at, but I
also believe that we have to find a way to transition into that and the
utilization of oil and gas is the way that we need to do that. That's our silver
bullet. At the end of the day, we understand our debt load; the way for us to
pay for that debt is to utilize the resources we have.
When we
talk about wind, one of the things that always bewilders me is we have a great
ability to harness the wind and use wind energy, but what we don't allow people
to do is put energy back into the grid in any kind of a substantive amount.
We talk
about a transition. If we want to transition, we ought to let people chart their
own path. There are lots of businesses out there that would love to utilize
alternative power sources and take what they don't use and put back into the
grid. For some reason, we don't do that, and everywhere else in the world,
that's the standard. We really, really, really need to do that much sooner than
later.
The
reality of it is it will give us excess power. We talk about the mining industry
and the things that are happening in the mining industry, which is incredibly
exciting, make no mistake about it. When we look at gold and nickel and uranium
and iron ore and all of the things that are happening here in Newfoundland, it's
massive. But we also have to have enough electricity to start those mines.
That's going to become a problem in short time. There's no question about it. We
need to find a way to allow people to start putting power back into the grid and
utilizing the power we have also to sell offshore.
Bit
mining, if you look at any of our hydroelectric facilities around the province,
we ought to do data mining and bit mining around all of them; very close
proximity, lower power. I talk to people at least on a weekly, basis, who have a
very serious interest in coming to Newfoundland and Labrador and taking
advantage of it, but they can't get the power. It's just not accessible for them
to do it.
Now
there was a group in Labrador West, it failed, unfortunately, but again it had
to do with power and location and all that good stuff. At the end of the day, we
should have these operations next to every single major power producer that we
have: Bay d'Espoir, Churchill Falls, Muskrat Falls. People would come if the
power was there; they'd come take it, there's no question. They're looking for
more power than we can supply and it's important that we look that way.
I'd like
to just circle back on LNG. We all know that there's a proposal out there now
for LNG, it's for Grassy Point. It's an LNG transshipment terminal. Basically,
what they want to do is they want to take advantage of all the LNG that's
offshore, the trillions and trillions of cubic feet of LNG, liquid natural gas,
and they want to bring it in to land, put it in a shipping container, liquefy,
send it off and power the world.
Now,
nothing has highlighted the need for this anymore than Russia's invasion of the
Ukraine. Now we can talk all about geopolitical atmosphere and everything that
happens, but Russia right now supplies Europe with LNG, a substantial amount and
a sole source. There's nowhere else to go except there to get it.
We have
energy to power the world and also to help us transition; not just us
transition, but to help the world transition. LNG is much cleaner. It will
hopefully then not be flared off offshore in different oilfields, that it also
creates the ability to have green and blue hydrogen. So there is a big
opportunity there, but there is a lot of work to be done.
The
people that are interested in it, they've got a proposal in place and they are
going through an environmental process right now. But government needs to be
bullish on this; the amount of work that it is going to create and what it can
do for the world is huge. I understand environmentalists talking about the
carbon effect of LNG, but you need to consider what the carbon effect of not
using LNG is. The reality of it is that LNG replaces coal, oil and much dirtier
fuel sources.
So it's
a transition; it's not the answer, it's a way to get to the answer. It's what we
don't do well as Newfoundlanders; we don't take advantage of the things we have.
I have always said for a long time, we're a province that has it all and we
don't know what to do with it. We've proven that time and time again. Sadly, we
shouldn't prove it time and time again. When we make the first mistake, we
shouldn't make the second mistake. But in some instances we make the same
mistake two or three times and it is just not acceptable.
Right
now, with our offshore oil and gas, I think LNG is the next step. It is the
metamorphosis in where we have come from and where we have to go and we really,
really need to look at it.
Tourism,
Culture, Arts and Recreation, you know, it is great to see, I said earlier,
about the investment in NASCAR and different things. I think that's great; I
understand what investment does. My question on all of that was the timing, and
for good reason, because of the financial crunch. Hopefully, the investment pays
off and it pays back the way that government suspects and we're all proven
wrong. The reality of it is that people are hurting right now, but if you look
at our film industry, you look at our tourism industry and you look at what is
happening in this province, it's pretty exciting.
My
colleague for Bonavista, I'm sure he could get up and speak more eloquently
about it than me. I'm fortunate enough to have the Eastport Peninsula in my
district and the Bonavista Peninsula I think are two great examples to the
province when it comes to tourism industry and what they have managed to do and
how they have harnessed it. If we can do that as a province, the results will be
incredible. Make no mistake about it, if you go to Bonavista or Eastport – and
people travel from St. John's to go out, certainly, to Bonavista for a day trip
just to have a beer and eat and they turn around and they drive back.
That
tells you exactly what they're doing with their product and how they're selling
their location, it is incredible and all of Newfoundland could be like that. We
just have to find a way to make it happen. We can make it happen, make no
mistake about it. People want to see what we have here.
I tell
you what, go anywhere else in Canada where you can see icebergs and prairies and
mountains and whales and bears and polar bears and this week a walrus – and the
Minister of Tourism – we can see all kinds of different things here. It's really
exciting what's happening in Newfoundland.
S. CROCKER:
Did you call me a walrus?
L. PARROTT:
No, I did not. No, I did not
call you a walrus.
Anyhow,
listen, there are exciting times coming. We're at a tough time right now and, at
the end of the day, we need to find a way through, but I believe brighter days
are ahead.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I wasn't
going to speak during this Committee, but I feel I need to now, listening to my
colleague from Terra Nova.
I just
wanted to provide a little balance to some of his comments. Like himself, I'm
very concerned about his children as well. I have tabled in this House of
Assembly a private Member's resolution really calling on the government, calling
on the province, calling on everyone to recognize what's going on around us. I'm
just going to sort of walk through the premise of these points. For those that
are listening, hopefully, you'll hear some words that you agree with and for
those who are not sure, maybe you'll learn a little bit.
I wanted
to start off – the entire world, including the Member for Terra Nova, have
acknowledged that the world is heating up dramatically, quickly. Twenty-eight
years from now, our own government – and I look to the minister responsible for
Climate Change, his own department and even when I sat there – we have
calculated, we have predicted that within 28 years from now, it will be 3.4
degrees warmer here in St. John's than preindustrial levels. In Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, where I live, it's going to be six degrees warmer. In Nain, by
2050, it will be 7.3 degrees warmer.
He made
a reference to the walrus that we had in Middle Cove. It is really interesting
to see that, but the fact of the matter is that walrus probably came south on
ice flow that is a result of a warming northern system. We are losing more and
more ice off the Greenland system. We used to have glaciers in Labrador. We
essentially have none left. Dr. Robert Way who has been doing his Ph.D. on
glaciology – there's really nothing left. We are cooking.
Unfortunately, here comes our province now at a point in time where we have this
fiscal crisis, we have a climate change crisis and, frankly, as a province, we
have a demographic crisis in that we've got such a concentration of people here
in the St. John's area. We're developing great resource projects in Labrador
West, in Voisey's Bay and other parts of our province and we just have a very
challenging situation.
So I get
it, I know why the desire is there to try and get more projects going like
Equinor's Bay du Nord, but at the same point I've got to say the timing is
unfortunate for us. We really need to park it, leave it in the ground. And what
I've been talking about doing is copying what the European Union is doing right
now.
Essentially what they do, they've created a fund that recognizes the just
transition and the struggles that it will take. You know, we're in the news
right now with Fortis. Just last week we had protesters here from other parts of
the world who are facing shutdowns of the coal mining operations that Fortis
oversees. There's no question, this is a great challenge; however, there are
strategies to deal with it; there can be financial support that's made
available. I only have to go to Poland right now, which the EU has identified as
a country that's heavily dependent on coal and will need that financial support.
So of
their just-transition fund in euros, a vast chunk of it, a huge chunk of it is
being allocated right now to support Poland in getting off the coal mining
industry and getting on to greener sources of alternative energy and so on. And
given the embargo that's going on right now, that the world is rejecting Russian
oil and so on, they're going to need to identify other energy sources, so it's
good to see.
That's
the case I've been making. If Canada is serious about making progress on our
commitments, not only to ourselves but to the world – by the way, Canada is
supposed to be a leader in concern for the environment, coming forward with
legislation, but we keep going forward with industrial initiatives in support of
the oil and gas sector.
Bought a
pipeline, approved Equinor's Bay du Nord Project, these are backwards steps from
the transition we keep talking about.
You
know, I'm 60 years of age, 28 years from now I'll be 88. Hopefully, I'll be
around to see this, but boy oh boy, I think about these younger generations that
are coming up and what kind of Earth are they going to face? We really need to
create a legacy now that can give them a chance of having an Earth that they can
actually inhabit. So we're collectively, around the world, trying to set the
limit of how much carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere.
Some of
you may have seen a little video I did a while ago, and I get some of the
messaging around government's approach to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is a bit too loud; I can't hear the speaker.
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I wanted
to make a comment around – I did a little video the other day and I talked about
the environmental advantage that is associated with the Bay du Nord Project.
There's no question there is some advantage, but you can quickly lose track of
what we are talking about. If I can just simplify it for folks here on the
floor. Essentially, the arguments the government is making is that the
extraction, the amount of energy it takes to extract oil from the fields off our
coast is actually much less energy and could be done with the high technology
that's available. I have got to credit Equinor and all of the other developments
in the offshore. We have certainly led the pack.
So
that's what we are talking about. We're talking about that incremental piece of
energy that we need to extract, and compared to – I'm thinking it is in the
vicinity of – now I have got to recall my numbers – I just ran upstairs to get
my papers – but it is in the vicinity of something like seven kilograms per
barrel, something like that. It's a very small amount versus 14 for sort of a
typical offshore operation, versus, I think, in the vicinity of 77 or something
like that for out northern oil sands projects in Alberta.
You can
see that is where the environmental advantage is, but the problem is, is that
for every barrel of oil, and that represents – I wish I had my numbers in front
of me – but for every barrel of oil and its mass, when you consume that oil –
this is the problem – that comes from Hibernia, it is just as carbon dioxide
emitting as any other barrel of oil that is out there. There is some slight
ranges and so on, but, essentially, when you consume that barrel of oil, you
will produce 3½ times its weight in pollution.
When you
start to calculate what we are leaving for our future generations – yeah, we
have a great debt right now and we have to do something about it, but I have
calculated that if we take a look at the Bay du Nord Project and that's just at
the low end of the situation, the low end of the scale, that 300-million barrels
of oil that we hope to extract, that is on the low side because it could be as
high as a billion; we will stick with the numbers, the 300-million barrels. That
would represent 146 million tons of greenhouse gases.
If you
take that to the federal government's commitment right now and the carbon tax
that everyone is preoccupied with, that's going to represent – once that is
fully implemented – some $24.8 billion of pollution penalties that our future
generations are going to have to pay for – almost $25 billion in pollution. We
are saying do you know what kids, 28 years from now, you are going to have a
hell of a situation to deal with.
That's
what I'm talking about and that's the kind of challenge that we have. So I get
it. I get why we have to do what we can.
The
other problem that we have with the Bay du Nord Project, by the way, is the
International Energy Agency. This is a group, Canada's a part of it, all the oil
and gas producing nations are a part of it, and it consists of environment and
natural resource industry ministers representing it. They have identified that
by 2024, we essentially need no more oil fields. It's time to stop.
Bay du
Nord, and the most ambitious of schedules and so on, won't be available until
2028. And that's why you saw that strong reaction. While there was celebration –
and I get the euphoria of the environmental assessment clearance that occurred
the other day from Ottawa – but the fact of the matter is so many people are
saying do you know what? It's going to come so late. And it's just a crying
shame that we didn't have this opportunity years ago. Here it is.
So
that's why I'm saying, Mr. Prime Minister and Cabinet and federal government, we
are in a situation where we are so fiscally strapped, we really need and have to
go. And I respect greatly the Member for Terra Nova because he says this is
going to be important for future generations, and, yeah, it will create that
GDP. But, unfortunately, it's going to come so late we're going to stick them
with that great pollution bill.
So I'm
saying let's go to Ottawa. We'll negotiate; we've got a proven field, this is
not just like some whimsical speculative situation, we have a project, well
designed, with at least 300-million barrels of oil, with the environmental
clearance. This has great value. We, as a jurisdiction, could leave it in the
ground and Mr. Prime Minister, in recognition of that, that is what's called a
reverse offset.
You see
it now in other jurisdictions. New Brunswick right now, for example, is setting
up situations where there are large reserves of forest that aren't harvested.
It's recognized how many tons of carbon dioxide, of greenhouse gas emissions,
wood – actually these trees growing – can actually absorb from the atmosphere.
That's got value in it. You can actually calculate.
Similarly, that field has great value. And if Canada is serious about trying to
make progress on this climate crisis that we're all facing, and we see the
signals every single day, and I've got to say, with the four of use who
represent Labrador, we are really seeing this now. The proof is in the pudding.
I get
the desperation of us, I get the excitement of this project; I just wish it had
come earlier. But I'm still saying to the prime minister, we are a jurisdiction
that could use some support, just like Poland is being supported right now by
the European Union.
With
that, Speaker, I've made my point.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Just a
few things with regard to Environment and Climate Change, Fisheries, and
Immigration on this issue. I'll start off with Climate Change. I think in many
ways we're going to have to address this.
I don't
know if you were looking at today's
Telegram – I won't refer to the walrus, but certainly in the United States
and Western, in Colorado, they have – and I'll read here if I may: We have never
taken this step before. These reservoirs are at the lowest they've been since
they've been constructed. And we're never going to see these reservoirs filled
again.
The
Western United States has experienced the driest period on record over the past
two decades. If you've listened to the news, too, you know that in India, across
the country, they've had temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius; that is 122 degrees
Fahrenheit. It's affecting crops; it's affecting the ability for even human
survivability in certain cities.
Here,
closer to home, this past summer was the driest on record, we had drought which,
basically, virtually, wiped out grain crops in the United States and in Western
Canada. I don't need to remind us of the forest fires, the heat dooms and so on
and so forth.
What
does that mean for Newfoundland? Well, the warning sigs are there. We have
renewable industries here, Speaker, whether it's the cod fishery, the crab,
scallops, you name it. We've got to address it. How we address it is another
matter, but we've got to address the fact that our own renewable resources here
are put in jeopardy. So climate change is something that we've go to address and
we've got to start addressing it now.
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture: I wanted to speak about aquaculture, in
particular. It's interesting that on March 22, we had, in the Mowi facilities in
Stephenville, another 2.26 million salmon in a hatchery that will have to be
destroyed.
Now,
I've spoken here. I'm not a proponent of open-sea pen aquaculture; it's risking
basically our wild salmon stocks on the South Coast. There has to be a way to
have closed containment systems that basically protect our other resources, the
other groundfish that are in the area. If we're going to have finfish
aquaculture, then we have to find either a way to make them land based or to
have them in closed containment.
But the
fact is, that even in this situation, extreme water temperatures have actually
killed off all the salmon in these pens. We're not talking about hundreds of
thousands; we're talking about millions.
The
other part of it is, too, if I remember correctly, with the aquaculture, we ship
most of the fish out head on, gutted: 80 per cent. If we're going to go down
this road, there has to be some way that we can maximize the production. If
we're going to carry on with open-sea pen aquaculture, then there has to be some
way to maximize production of secondary process so that we're actually employing
more people here. That we're keeping the production and the secondary processing
right here.
I know
it has been said, well, that'll never work; Newfoundland is too far from
markets; we'll never do it as cheaply. Well, no matter where we are, no matter
what industry we take on here, we're too far from markets. But there has to be
some way, Speaker. If we're looking in the resource at maximizing the value,
let's find a way to make sure that the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get the
maximum amount of value of, especially, our renewable resources.
The last
comment I'll make is certainly with regards to Immigration, Population Growth
and Skills. It is about how do we attract people to stay here and bring them
here? Again, I am going to bring this up: if you're bringing people to this
province, give anyone enough time and people will want to stay here. But in many
cases, as I have spoken to people in the community, many of the immigrants will
actually move on. They're going to go to a larger centre.
But
there are groups here who are trying to build a community so we have to focus on
that and we have to put the supports in place. Which is why I am hoping that
when it comes to the newcomers, whether they be Syrian, Afghan or Ukrainian,
that we find ways that we put the resources into it. Let me rephrase it, to
invest the resources in these people so that they will stay here. Maybe there
are ways that we can use the tax system, or look at that to encourage people, to
attract bright young minds to settle here.
But
those are some of the issues, as I sat in mostly on Immigration, Population
Growth and Skills; Environment; and Fisheries. I think we've got a bit of work
ahead of us, but I do believe, as other Members have said here, that
Newfoundland and Labrador does have a bright future. It's my home. I'm hoping
that my daughter who's now doing her fellowship in Calgary will come back here
and find a place here for her. That's what I want.
I'm
hoping that my children will never have to move out of here. But I know that the
pull is there. Nevertheless, to me, it's about making this – I'm 62. In 20 years
– well, if I still have my mind with me –
P. DINN:
That's debatable.
J. DINN:
That's debatable now.
P. DINN:
I can get away with that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Said your older brother.
J. DINN:
Said my older-looking
brother.
So to
me, I've never had any desire to move out of here, this is my home. I will do
what it takes to make sure that it's a home for my children and for the children
in other families. It's important to me that we have a bright future and I think
we also need to look at making it a sustainable future as well.
And that
way, whatever perspective we're coming at it from, I do believe that's the
common thing that unites us. We are after the same thing. We just have a
different perspective on how to get there.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
the House ready for the question?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee, carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that we move to Concurrence
debate for the Government Services Committee.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Just quickly, I'd like to
take this opportunity to thank the Standing Committee for Government Services
for the great job they did during Estimates. Thank you for the opportunity to
Chair those meetings. We look after Consolidated Fund Services, Department of
Finance, Public Service Commission, Transportation and Infrastructure, Public
Procurement and Digital Government.
I
would like to thank the minister, the minister's officials and, of course, our
Committee Members for a great job during Estimates. In all cases, the questions
were very pertinent and when asked for clarification, it was given. Certainly,
the two parties and the independent Members had an opportunity to ask questions
and to question ministers and their officials.
I
feel this is a very important process and very necessary, as the accountability
of the success of any government – it strengthens the people's faith in the
democratic system by getting answers to their questions.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, on that.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.
I,
too, want to thank all of the Members of the Committee and all of the
hard-working people of the public service who actually put this budget together
and make it a lot easier for us, when we asked questions to get answers and to
go through the entire process.
I'm
going to start off – because Finance gives me an opportunity to talk about lots
of departments and because, obviously, every department requires money to help
them run.
My
colleague from Bonavista, this morning, in his passion about the challenges that
he was having with Crown lands in his district, all so real and all so hard to
understand that we can't find a way to fix them that would help these people.
But he never got a chance to follow up on his second passion – or his first
passion, I am not sure which – which is the fishery.
And, of course, I have said this before in the House and I will continue to say
it, when we joined Canada in 1949 we brought the richest fishing grounds in the
world to the country of Canada and their standing as a fishing country went up
significantly because of it. I will continue to stand in this House and say that
the principal beneficiary of our fishing resources should be the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now
someone might ask me: Why are you so passionate about the fishery? My first job
was in the fishery. I was in grade seven, but no, I wasn't on a schooner or out
on the boats. I was going door to door –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
T. WAKEHAM: Some might think I was. Some might think that.
However, I will let you know that I had a wheelbarrow and in my wheelbarrow I
had fresh fish because my uncle was a full-time fisherman and my father was a
part-time fisherman. When they would come home after they sold so much to the
plant, they would keep so much to salt. But as a young man sitting home there, they would give me fresh fish to
go door to door in my hometown of Placentia and sell them. A dollar for a large
one, head on; 50 cents for the small one and I would go.
But
there's a caveat. The first $10 I made, I had to give it back to my father and
my uncle. The reason I had to give it back to them was because they went to the
liquor store and bought the bottle of whiskey. But I didn't mind that because,
at the end of the day, while they were having a few nips, as they continued to
filet to get ready to salt the fish, the more nips they had, the less they
wanted to salt, which meant there was more fish for me and my wheelbarrow to go
door to door selling. So, at the end of the day, it was a great way – my first
lesson in business.
My
father was the son of a fisherman. My mother was the daughter of a fisherman.
They were born in Petite Forte, grew up in Petite Forte and, obviously, my dad
wound up leaving when Argentia started up to go to Argentia to work for the oil,
but still back then he could maintain a part-time licence. My uncle moved from
Petite Forte to Placentia and continued on to be a full-time fisherman.
The
idea, when you think about it, is this province of ours was started because of
the fishery. We're still here 500 years later because of the fishery. It's still
over a billion-dollar industry. We think it should be more, could be more, and I
think there's still a tremendous amount of opportunity for all of us in the
fishing industry, but let's make sure that the principal beneficiary is always
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I did my
colleague proud and I'm delighted to be able to speak on his behalf on the
fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Now, I just want to get into
a little discussion on the financial piece. As we know, a budget is all about
choices. We've had lots of discussion around choices in this particular budget
and what we believe are some of the options for government when it comes to
helping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
recognize there are those three questions that you often ask when you talk about
monies. The three questions often get asked are: What do you want? What do you
need? What can you afford? I might want to drive a great big SUV Cadillac. What
I need is transportation to and from. What I can afford might be a very small
car. So choices have to be made.
Right
now in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Newfoundland, the want and the
need are getting pretty close. There is a want for improved health care
services. Certainly, we could all agree, there is a need for improved health
care services. But part of the challenge in delivering that. We've all heard
reasons why we can't do things, but I would suggest that we have to find ways to
do those things. I will use the rationale behind the nurse practitioner as one
example.
We have
been told, the minister has told us, the Minister of Health on a number of
occasions, he's working with the unions, he's working with their body to talk
about the Nurse Practitioner Association to find a way to fund nurse
practitioners so that the people of the province who are paying right now to see
a nurse practitioner will no longer have to do so.
That's
great, but while he's working on that particular issue, he can find a way to pay
or reimburse the people who are actually using the services. Pay the patient.
Reimburse the patient, whether it's done through a regional health authority or
through the Medical Transportation Assistance Program, whatever way you need to
do it, but, surely, having seniors having to go to a nurse practitioner and take
$35 out of their wallet to pay for their visit is not good enough.
We do
not need to wait to figure out a way for government to reimburse nurse
practitioners. The government can step up right now and allow that to happen
through the Medical Transportation Assistance Program, if you modify it, or
through the regional health authorities. There has to be a way. I am sure that
with all of the talented people that are working in government, whether it's in
the Department of Health and Community Services, whether it's in the regional
health authorities, whether it's in the Department of Finance, can find a way to
make that happen. But let's stop now having seniors and others in our province
having to spend money to see a primary care provider. Fundamentally, there's
something wrong with that and we can do something about it. We need to do
something about it.
So I
would suggest that is something that does not need to wait. It can be done; it
should be done. So let's start with that premise, right there, finding a way to
reimburse the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are paying out of pocket
to see a nurse practitioner. Reimburse them; find a way to make it happen. I
think it can be done and should be done.
Similarly, when we look at the budget, it is a moment in time; it is a
projection of what we will do for the rest of the fiscal year. And, as we know,
sometimes budgets go up and sometimes they go down. The government has had the
good fortune since the budget was first passed – or sorry, it's not passed yet
because, hopefully, we're going to amend it before it get's passed or the
government is going to amend it – but we've had the good fortune that oil has
traded above what has been projected. Now this may or may not continue, but it
has been trading above the $85 mark.
Now, I'm
not sure what the particular production schedule has been like for the last six
weeks but, again, there would appear to be extra income flowing into the coffers
of the government at this present time.
The same
way, when you look at the tax revenue. We continue to charge HST. So every time
the price of gas goes up, the government benefits from an increase in HST
revenue. So all of those jumps that we've seen in gas prices at the pumps are
resulted in increased revenue to the provincial government and perhaps we're
going to see more this week, who knows. The same thing with fuel oil; fuel that
people put in their tanks to heat their homes. Every time that price has gone
up, the government has benefited from increased revenue from HST.
So we
know government, in the current situation, is getting additional revenue over
and above what they budgeted. Unless, of course, they budgeted oil to be this
high or they budgeted gasoline prices at over $2 a litre. I don't think they
did. I don't think anybody – I don't think they would have budgeted that. So,
again, I think there is extra revenue flowing into the government at this moment
because of all those things. So that is one source.
Then we
turn around and we look at the budget and we talk about how the budget is
allocated. There are areas in the budget that, during the Estimates review, we
were able to talk about some of those challenges. The extra $67 million that's
currently budgeted in Salaries for government departments. I know that some of
that will be for certain things, or increases, or step progressions, but how
much of it is for new positions or the filling of positions that you have not
filled in three years? Because, technically, two years ago, there was a surplus
of $50 million in that same area. Last year, the surplus was like $63 million or
$64 million and the year before that.
So there
are a significant number of vacancies that exist right now in the public
service, whether they've been vacant for more than six months or vacant for more
than a year, that is a question we have asked in the Estimates. That is a
question we await the answer for. Hopefully, we'll get the answer soon enough to
be able to actually look at how long those positions have been vacant.
I would
suggest that based on historical documents over the last three years, the
budgets over the last three years, there's no way that this government will fill
or spend that $67 million in Salaries this year. They will not be able to fill
all those positions. So why continue to budget for an expense item that you
never achieve?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) cut jobs.
T. WAKEHAM:
That has nothing to do with
cutting jobs because, at the end of the day, these jobs are vacant; these are
not about cutting jobs, as the minister across the way is saying. It has nothing
to do with cutting jobs. It has to do with how you budget.
So,
realistically, budgeting for positions that you're able to fill in a year,
instead of a plug number that you put in there and never achieve. That's a big
difference. That's a big difference from one year to the next, that's all we're
saying. From one year to the next, if you realistically budget for those
positions you're going to fill, then so be it. But you have not been able to
prove that for the last three years. So, again, that money is available.
There's
$22 million in a contingency fund, and government needs a contingency fund.
There's another $40-something million in another fund. So, again, when you talk
about some of the biggest need in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
right now is to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through this
current financial crisis that each and every one of them are going through when
it comes to the people who have to travel or use their vehicles for travel, who
have jobs that require them to drive to and from work.
All of
the people in the Minister of Tourism's district who travel in every single day
from CBN to come to work and back, how much extra is it costing them every
single week for transportation? For people who have to travel for medical
appointments because the service isn't available in their region, how much extra
is it costing them?
So these
are the real issues that people need help with. The fuel tanks: we've heard my
colleagues today talk, significantly, about challenges with home heat and the
cost, whether it is the landlord, whether it is the tenant. Everybody is
struggling to come up with a way to be able to afford to pay for those costs.
What I'm suggesting here is that – even the Premier today alluded to additional
measures may be coming. It was quoted in VOCM: the Premier alludes to additional
measure may be coming.
So what
we are trying to say is don't continue to wait. Do it now. Help the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador now that need that help. It's as simple as that. Find
a way to do it. Even if it is only a temporary solution for the next three
months, you find a way to drop some of the taxes on a litre of gas, then do it.
Find a way.
Again, I
have got to think there is enough talented people working in government right
now that can find creative solutions. They will find us solutions; just give
them the go-ahead to find them. Give them the go-ahead to find them. That's all
we are asking for. Give them the opportunity.
For
people who are heating their homes, they have incurred a significant cost. I
know we have talked about rebate programs in the past and we haven't had any
luck, so if you don't want to call it a home heat rebate program, but would
prefer to call it something else, then find a way to give people a significant
reimbursement for their heating cost.
I had a
constituent write me yesterday – the Minister of Environment might be interested
in this one. He wanted to apply for a heat pump. A heat pump requires a
secondary source of heat under the program to convert. He has an oil furnace
right now. For him to convert his oil furnace, which he still hasn't paid off
because he had to put in a new oil furnace two years ago and he is paying $100 a
month, he wanted to take advantage of this home heat rebate program to try and
save some money on heating expense, but guess what? He doesn't qualify because
in order to qualify, he would have to remove his oil furnace. So it wasn't about
reducing the amount of oil he needed, it was about he'd have to change out his
oil furnace and turn it into electricity, at a cost of $15,000 which he does not
have.
So if
you want to reduce people's dependency on oil, then maybe you have to be
realistic and say maybe we can help reduce the dependency on oil by allowing
them to implement other measures in their homes, like heat pumps. Instead of
simply saying you have to replace your oil furnace, the fact that you're able to
put in a heat pump, and reduce the amount of oil you need to burn, that to me
seems like, that's what we're trying to achieve. We can do that without spending
$15,000 on putting in or rewiring your house.
Again,
there are programs that you've put forward, but we have to figure out how it
works and how we can make it work so it benefits the most people. Because,
ultimately, if that was the goal, we can achieve that goal by allowing more
people access to that funding, the home heating rebate program, but not at the
expense of having to eliminate their oil furnace and try to replace it with a
new electrical system, when their house isn't wired for that kind of a system.
So there needs to be changes made to it. We need to find a way.
But,
again, that's what this budget is all about. It's all about choice; it's all
about change in the air, we know that. It's all about hope because the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador are hoping that their government is listening. They
understand the programs that government already implemented. Full credit on what
they have done, but they themselves admitted publicly that it didn't go far
enough.
The
Premier has said there's more to come, or there may be additional measures. So
what we're suggesting is let's not pass this budget without making those
adjustments. Let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that you're
listening; that they have some hope; that there will be action taken sooner than
later on the high cost of living and what needs to happen.
For that
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate having the opportunity just to follow up on my earlier remarks,
because while I am not in favour of the Bay du Nord Project, I am in favour of
this province getting the best deal possible from Equinor.
Last
week, I posed a question and I wanted to take this time to elaborate under this
sector of Government Services, general government sector, to talk a little bit
about it and the exchange I had with the Finance Minister, which I appreciate.
If
anyone's watching, I'm going to draw heavily on this –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
going to draw heavily on what is happening in the United States right now, and
I'm certainly not talking about the regressive move against women, pro-choice
and so on, I'm going to talk about what's called windfall profit tax
legislation. I would refer anybody in this Legislature to have a solid look at
it.
First,
I'm actually going to go to the Opposition here today. I'm going to talk to the
Progressive Conservatives and my colleagues around me, because do you know what,
folks? Fourteen of 28 questions that you asked today were preoccupied with the
rising price of gas, cost of living, home heating oil and so on. We are
inundated with this in each of our offices. I get it. I keep track every day, by
the way, of every question, what every person asks and on what theme.
We're
tracking these last few days, as our prices escalate, about 50 per cent of our
questions are preoccupied with this and we're arguing over whether or not
government should do something with some of the provincial taxes. Well, let me
tell you about who's making the money. That's these multinational oil and gas
companies that are going around the world looking for as much subsidy from us as
possible. This is what the Americans are doing, Britain is also looking at it,
and I'm urging our government to do it as well. Whether we do it as a
subnational, as Newfoundland and Labrador, as a country, there's something here
worth looking at.
I'm just
going to give you a couple quotes. “Last year, four fossil fuel multinational
giants – ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP – earned more than $75 billion in a
single year in profits. Crude oil prices are now 50 percent higher than the
average daily price ….” I checked out ours, too. Suncor, operating here in
Canada, made $4 billion. Canadian Natural Resources, $7.7 billion. We're not
going after the right groups. We're here arguing amongst ourselves with these
crumbs, while the oil and gas companies, and particularly their shareholders,
their executives, that is who is benefiting.
So I
would heavily refer everyone –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) men and women
working in the (inaudible).
P. TRIMPER:
This is where the Member
never listens. What I'm talking about is going after who's making a profit. I am
so a supporter of the folks of this province in getting as much opportunity –
what I'm talking about is here we try to make this more affordable and try to
make sure that our folks are gainfully employed, why do so many people have to
suffer, especially in the lower end, the most vulnerable. That money and what
the Americans are doing is bringing this in now; it just got introduced into
Congress and it's taking 50 per cent of a calculated profit. This is a tax on
profit, not on production, that's where the Member gets it wrong. It is on
profit.
There
was an average price of $66 per barrel from 2015 to 2019. Both the Americans and
Canada have been working with these calculations. So what we do is we take $66,
we compare it to right now – when I did these calculations, updated for my
question last week, it was actually a little over $100. So at $66 and you take
$100.30 last Monday, that was our current average, that's a difference of
$34.50. Now this is profit that is coming on top of incredibly lucrative runs
these oil and gas companies have had.
The way
the tax works, it is applied solely to the profit, so as the profits go up and
down, the jurisdiction that has this legislation in place takes 50 per cent of
it.
If we
had it in place last week – this is what I talked about, for Hibernia, say – it
would represent $17.15 per barrel. So say last Monday or Tuesday when I asked
the question, at 120,000 barrels a day up to 135,000 barrels a day – this is the
kind of range we're having with Hibernia – that would generate for us some $2.1
million to $2.3 million per day.
What
happens with the money is it is directed, it doesn't go to receiver general for
Newfoundland and Labrador. This goes back into low and middle income – the folks
most vulnerable, the folks most suffering from the high cost of living, from the
high price of gas. That is $2.1 million to $2.3 million US. Those are big
dollars, per day back into helping those folks. We could be doing that right
now.
Now,
granted, the projects are up and running and I can imagine the resistance that
is going to go on with these oil and gas companies. But as the Minister of IET
and his colleagues and the Minister of Finance and the Premier and government
are sitting down and working with Equinor right now, I'm saying we should be
striking the best deal possible for our province, and it protects the workers,
it protects our industry. I'm not in favour of it, but I can tell you, let's get
the best deal that we can.
I'm
going to give you another example. Here it is for Equinor, by the way. If Bay du
Nord operates for some 30 years and producing, again, as I did in my previous
speech, some 300-million barrels of oil over that 30 years. It's actually a
lower production daily rate than we're seeing with Hibernia, but, nevertheless,
it represents some 27,400 barrels of oil per day. We apply that same $17.15 per
barrel. That represents about $172 million a year that can go back to supporting
the low income.
Government is talking a lot, as they should, we are all in support of it, the
$142 million; it's part of the budget that they're directed to low and middle
income. I'm saying there's $172 million out there on the low end of this project
right now.
Again,
the Americans are bringing this in, it's in Congress, just go online, have a
look, you can see the bill is tracking through. The Democrats are bringing it
in. I think it's going to be tough for the Republicans to argue with it, unless,
of course, many of them are these shareholders and executives. The people who
are paying are those, the consumers, everybody that we're hearing from.
I just
want to read a few quotes. It says: Congress should impose a windfall attacks on
oil company profits. There are many more effective approaches that could ensure
that if such a tax is borne by shareholders, the lion's share of whom are
wealthy individuals and foreign investors, rather than consumers, taxing
windfall profits would align the oil companies' interests with the public's need
for lower prices. This recommends an approach for setting windfall profits tax
that will rise and fall with the fluctuation of crude oil prices, until they
return to what we are feeling this pre-crisis level. This approach temporarily
raises the tax rates paid by oil companies on their profits during the period
that oil prices are at these elevated prices.
My
independent colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands was just reminding me:
Folks, let's just remember one year ago when we were dealing with the budget, I
remember getting on my feet and talking about – and we'll all remember the
escalating price of lumber. Remember that, it was driving the cost of homes
through the roof. It was almost making it impossible, and the difficulties.
The
problem there again was in those who were doing the production. Their base cost,
the raw material, that's stumpage fee that we pay to the folks who are actually
growing the trees, who cut the trees, who deliver the trees and the wood
products to the processor, none of that changed. Those folks all got the same
price. It was the folks who were actually doing the processing, who were sawing
up the lumber, creating the materials and so on, they managed to, because of
COVID, because of the circumstances and so on, enjoy tremendous profits.
This
government was not nimble enough. Alberta did it. I stood on this floor last
year on my feet and urged government to take a look at the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting a bit loud again.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
To be
nimble enough to realize there's an opportunity here, and, by the way, the
opportunity is an opportunity to help. It's an opportunity to help the residents
of this province who are complaining.
Again, 50 per cent of our questions, folks, each
day on this side of the House are preoccupied with helping those people.
So take a look at it: windfall profit tax
legislation. I do believe there is merit in it. The Americans are doing it.
Ignore what they are doing about women's rights, but there are some other good
suggestions down there. Let's have a look at it.
Thank you very much. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay South.
B.
PETTEN:
Thank you,
Speaker.
It's a pleasure to get up this evening and talk
about concurrence on the Government Services Committee. I guess it's always a
pleasure to get up in this House and speak. Every time we speak, we always, I
like to say, speak for the residents who elected us, our constituents. I'm the
shadow critic for Transportation and Infrastructure in the Government Services
Committee, but also the Legislature is there, too, and as a member of the
Management Commission, we are also a part of that group as well.
I guess one thing when my colleague from
Stephenville - Port au Port was talking about his background, his first job and
where he came from a fishing community, a fishing family. Unlike most, probably
even a lot in this House, not everyone, but a lot, CBS is actually an
agricultural community.
So a lot of the districts are based on the
fishery and it's a very important part of our culture. It's who we are. I mean,
I have fishermen in CBS as well, but it is in the Town of CBS's flag, it is
actually agriculture. It's one of the symbols in our flag. It's a very important
part of our town. I deal a lot with farmers. I heard my colleague from Exploits
in the last few days on the cost of fertilizer and talking about the issues that
affect farmers. It's not the popular thing, like the oil and gas or the fishery
that we hear a lot about. You don't hear a lot about it and when he was speaking
about it then he asked questions. I read on the media over the weekend. I'm not
part of that. That has never been in my purview, so to speak, in the House. I
always try to speak on it.
But it is good to hear that because sometimes
that is lost in the shuffle. I know, Speaker, in your area there is a bit of
agriculture, if I'm not mistaken, or close to that area and other Members around
this House. But for the most part, we talk about the fishery. The fishery
affects most every district in the province, but, ironically, you know – and
some districts have got some tourism. That is kind of an outlier now, too,
right? Because the fishery, like my colleague from Bonavista, he has both. He
got the tourism plus he has got the fishery. It is a fishing community.
So it was kind of something that was triggered
when the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port was talking about it. Sometimes
we don't – in our own districts, I get up and say what a beautiful district I
represent and I am proud of it and it is my hometown, I've lived here all my
life. I probably don't speak about it enough in this House. Probably many times
you are out in the public that it is very important to know and celebrate your
background and your heritage.
Speaker,
I guess, when I look at Transportation and Infrastructure, we had Estimates
Thursday night past. It was a great job by all officials, the minister and his
staff. We had a lot of debate, it was 3½ hours I believe we were here and it was
a lot of good conversation. I appreciated the time they did give to our
questions and I commend them for that.
Some of
the comments I've got to make are not going to be new to the minister. But I'm a
believer. If you believe in something, if you stand for something, then stand.
I've always said it may not be the best popular position, but you should stand
for something. So don't hide behind, or don't try to water it down.
I guess
one of the issues that I spoke out a lot about, and I'll spend a bit of my time
here tonight, is P3s. The Opposition – when this party was in government back
before 2015, we were the ones who worked on bringing in P3s. No shyness, no
problem here admitting that. It was the way of the future. There was a lot of
work being done just at the time government changed in 2015 on introducing P3s
was a new way of doing things. It was the most economical, it made the most
sense for governments to do that going forward, because so many liabilities on
the books over the years for the government and responsibilities. We pushed it.
And I was behind the scenes, I wasn't an elected Member, I was close in the
Executive and to the elected Members of the day, I spent a lot of time in this
Legislature as a staff person. We were all over it.
Current
government were somewhat critical of aspects of the plan, but fair enough, when
they took over, they realized that was the way to go. People don't realize a lot
of this work is done, it's in the books, it's on the paper and when governments
change this stuff is still sitting on the desks, in the bureaucrats. Whether the
government accepts it or don't accept it, that's up to them. We had our poverty
reduction plan; they didn't think that was a good idea. We had a home oil
rebate; they didn't think that was a good idea.
But we
also had P3s, a lot of work was done, the government opposite decided to take it
and run with it. Fair enough. But when you look at the P3s, do it right.
I go
back to one of my projects I spoke about a lot, the long-term care centres in
Gander and Grand Falls. Seniors need them, the hospitals are full and the
waiting rooms are full. They're out in the hallways. They're at home. They're
being charged fees in hospital to wait to get in these homes, as part of a
process that government's charges so much a day to look after them in the
hospital until the long-term care facilities are ready.
They're
still waiting. We had a ribbon-cutting ceremony in March and everyone in the
province thought – me included – it was a good thing, we were getting ready to
open. We find out a month later, no, that's not the case; it's going to be set
back a few weeks. Now I'm thinking it might be longer than a few weeks,
hopefully not, but it's going to be a few weeks, maybe another month. Now that's
two months back from the ribbon cutting.
But I
guess the crux of what I'm trying to explain, or get out, is that should never
be. That's not a result of a P3. That's the result of poor management, poor
project management. Whoever's responsibility that is, well so be it. Everyone
has to take responsibility for what they do in life. If you work serving coffee
– my daughter does while she's in university – if she makes a mistake, it's her
fault. If she's told how to do something and she goes and does it wrong,
ultimately she has to be responsible for it. Some might say you're only working
at Tim Hortons, but no, that's your responsibility, you have to do it right. Do
what you have to do.
So we
have project managers out on these jobs; someone is not doing their job. But
ultimately it falls into the executive of the department, because they're the
ultimate ones who make those decisions. They need to oversee the people that
overseeing.
If you
build a house, you put the studs in the house, you gyprock, you vapor barrier,
you insulate, you put your gyprock on, you paint and you do whatever. So when
you get all that done and you're ready to move the furniture in, do you stop and
say let's go and check the studs? I should hope not. I hope you don't be the
project manager in anything I'm living in, or building. Obviously, that's common
sense that prevails there.
So just
think about this, Speaker, you're in there and there was the ribbon cutting, and
it was nice ribbon cutting, too. Nice pictures, everyone had their new shiny
outfits on, everyone looked –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Photo op.
B. PETTEN:
It was a great photo op. It
was, I have to say.
They do
a good job on photo ops. I like to remind people of that. People think I do it
as tongue in check and I'm probably smirking when I say it, but photo ops are
pretty popular opposite. They do a good job of it and I give them credit, more
power to them. We don't probably do enough of it, but they do a great job. They
do enough for both of us, how's that. So we don't need to do any photo ops
because they're doing them all for us.
I'd say
there are photo ops going on this evening. If I'm not mistaken, there are photo
ops everywhere happening this evening, I'll leave it at that.
Yes,
showers, the floors are not level. So the showers are in there and your floor is
not level. Under that is concrete. What's the first thing you pour when you
build anything? Concrete. It has to be, that's the basic of the building. So
when was that inspected? When they turned the shower on? So do I trust the
structure of this building? No
AN HON. MEMBER:
There's no water.
B. PETTEN:
There's no water, too. That's
another problem.
This
stuff should not be happening. To the minister's credit, he's not happy with it
either. He said that and I respect that. But this is probably a little big
bigger than even the minister. This is why it bears repeating, it's why I'm on
this topic, I'm not so certain we're doing any of the rest of them any better.
We're in
the middle of the new mental health facility next door. I talked to someone
actually that's working on that, after I spoke about the long-term care
situation in Grand Falls; he reached out to me. They're wondering where they
could find the 4,000 deficiencies that were in the long-term cares out there. I
said: If you don't mind me asking, why would you be asking me that? I do not
want to be embarrassed and the same thing happen over here that happened out
there. And I said: Good on you. Because these people are in the position, they
can try to correct it before it goes wrong.
So
you'll get criticized over here for what we're doing and what comments we're
making, but, obviously, it's resonating. Obviously, by being outspoken in the P3
process and what's happening in the long-term care centres in Gander and Grand
Falls, maybe we may get it done half right over next door to the mental health
facility. Maybe it worked; maybe mission accomplished. But that doesn't make me
want to stop and say, okay, my job is done. My work is done here; I'm not going
to speak about it no more. No, because we got the HMP coming up. We still have
Corner Brook hospital.
I guess
it comes to a point of doing it right. I find this sometimes annoys me, too,
it's insulting, I think, to the general public sometimes because the public know
better. Most people in the province this day and age are not easily fooled. They
pick up on these things and they ask the same questions.
Prime
example was the lady that was working over there. I don't know this person, but
they're keen enough to realize, hang on a second, I don't want to be anywhere
near something like this happening here. So maybe that is going to make the
process better. Maybe that will save the minister the headache that he had out
in Grand Falls, but it still doesn't fix the problem that has happened out
there; we're still living with that. I guess when you ask the questions, you're
given this dismissive approach; you're only being annoying. I don't buy that.
We have
a job to do in this House. Right now, we're the Official Opposition; we're the
Loyal Opposition of this House. You know, if we have an election and the numbers
changed, we could be there and they could be over in that role. Some Members
over there were over in this role. It is a role of the House and they'd be doing
the same thing day in and day out that we do over here. But does that stop us
from asking questions; does that stop us from making points in this House or
trying to be intimidated into not having our say? No.
You
know, you hear in Question Period a lot of days in here they don't like the tone
of the questions. They don't like the way we're asking questions. They think we
should do better. They're offended by it.
But
that's not what this Legislature is, Mr. Speaker. It's meant to be respectful,
absolutely. But respect goes both ways, Speaker. It's got to be on both sides;
it's got to be respect show on both sides.
In our
role as being shadow critic ministers, whatever role you want to call it, we
have to challenge government. Our role is to oppose and challenge government
when we see fit. At the end of the day, you do that to create better
legislation, better policy and better spending of public money.
If
you're spending over $9 billion in public funds –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
They want to keep going all
night.
But if
you're challenging government in how you're spending in excess of $9 billion –
think about that $9 billion. The average household is operating on probably less
than $100,000. You're dealing with $9 billion of public money. We don't own that
money. You're tasked with the responsibility for spending that in the most
appropriate way. But it should be to the betterment of every Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. That's what that money's for. It's not to make me or anyone in this
House happy. It's not to fund any pet projects. It's not their money anymore
than it's our money. But it's our responsibility. It's the public's money. It's
what we're built on.
We're
here debating a budget now; that's what we're here for. We're sitting this night
sittings and we're doing this concurrence. There are a lot of people who don't
understand this concurrence part of our budgetary process. It's a long process.
You try to explain that to some people and they don't get it. I don't blame
them, because it can get pretty convoluted and dry, but it's a part of the
process. It's what we're here for. It's our role. It's our elected duty to do
that.
In
certain circumstances, we've got different – I mean, the Member, my colleague
for Stephenville - Port au Port, he is our Finance shadow critic minister. He's
challenged every day. He's up on his feet. But you know what his number one
issue and our number one issue here is? Cost of living.
Now, you
know the media are not going to report it every day because they've got their
other agenda and I can't control what they do. I could criticize them all day
long. But I'm not even going to do that. But we have a responsibility, whether
they want to report it or not, whether the general public wants to say how come
you're not out on the cost of living? Where's your leader to, I'd be beating
down doors. I say but we are. We send out news release after news release after
news release. We can't help if the media don't pick it up. We're on the issue.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
Maybe so. My colleague the
Government House Leader just said the Liberal media. Maybe so. I wasn't even
going to go that route.
Here I
go again; I'm running out of time, Mr. Speaker. But I could go down a road on
that one, too, and I'm not even going to do that. I'm going to try to be
pleasant about this, but I could go out on that one.
We can't
control what anyone reports, what anyone says, what anyone does. We can only
control what we do. In this Legislature, there are a lot of strong opinions.
There is a lot of good debate. There are a lot of great facts put to this floor.
It's enshrined in Hansard. It's in our
cameras. It's in the archived footage. People can watch this all day long. We
are doing the best we can to deal with this very serious issue.
Do I
think government listens to what we're asking? No. Do I think government knows
the situation we're in? They absolutely do. Do I think government knows how to
deal with this? Probably not. They're elected though. We can't tell government
what to do; we can put out suggestions. When they come up with options we can
debate it, question it and try to improve it.
Ultimately, you're the elected government; you have the most seats. The way our
Legislature works, you form government. The Premier and his team decides to
bring an agenda forth. We have a role to debate it and it's what we're doing
here in this budget process. But to hear some of the stuff that I hear day in
and day out in this House.
I spent
a lot of time in here in my role as House Leader, I kind of have to be around
here more than most, it's the running of the House and you're involved in
integrate details of the House. It s very frustrating though at times when I
hear some of the comebacks.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't bring this up again. Today, during QP, the Premier – I have
respect for the Premier. I mean I have conversations with him and I know he's
growing in the role, I give him credit for that, but what's going on now, he's
starting to get infected. He's starting to get infected now. Now, every second
response out of him, he's giving rationale. He's reasoning for any failures that
may be opposite, the rationale for that is, you know – and I have a tally here,
Mr. Speaker. I'm going to ballpark it. I'm around 30 to 40 references to Muskrat
Falls. But it's more than that. That don't count times I've been out of the
House for a minute here or there or maybe I missed some with the heckling, but
I'm going to say 40 references to Muskrat Falls.
So today
he said, listen closely. Muskrat Falls is the reason for whatever the question
was. You can ask any question, any question out there: Muskrat Falls, it's the
rationale. So, of course, when I stood to my feet – I've said this in the House
many times too – to speak, I said well, fair enough. Well, listen closely, Mr.
Premier: Upper Churchill. That's how lame it is.
So do we
stand here every day and talk about the worst deal signed ever, we're still
paying for it, 40-odd years later – and how long am I gone – 50-odd years later.
We have to go to 2041 before we can even go on bended knee up in Quebec
somewhere to try and get our money back. But do I blame these crowd of people
opposite that were Liberals? No. A Liberal government done it, they're not the
fault. Some of them weren't born for God's sake. I mean, come on.
So you
go on this side of the House, right here tonight now, we have nobody, nobody,
right here in this Legislature at this moment on this side of the House that was
around for Muskrat Falls. There's no one in this House right now, right this
minute – I'm sorry, I was going to say his name – the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands was there, sorry, and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. Sorry,
I'll rephrase that.
But
you're blaming the Opposition on the Opposition side; we weren't around for it.
This is a serious point, outside the jabs back and forth, this is the point
everyone needs to realize. There was no elected official right now, right this
minute in the Official Opposition that were agreed or around for Muskrat Falls.
Just like, why would I blame them for the Upper Churchill? It's the same
equivalent as blaming us for Muskrat Falls. It's so lame.
I read
an article a couple of weeks ago and this media person, this reporter, really
put it in context. Called them out, call out the Liberal government: This is
your excuse book. It's become a joke. Instead of changing up and trying to
rebrand yourself and look better in the public, what do you do? You double down
and you continue and continue and continue. But you know what that is, Mr.
Speaker. That's a government out of ideas. They've got nothing to back
themselves up on, they've got nothing to fall back on, it's blame it on Muskrat
Falls.
In my
final seconds, because I'm getting going, but I'm going to stop, every event, no
matter how big or small, it's usually a small one, and it's a bit of good news,
it's a big hoopla. Now, there are people everywhere tonight, I'm telling you,
the flashcubes are going tonight. You can see it tomorrow morning, you'll watch
it on the news, there's about 150 Ukrainians in there and I tell you, the
Members opposite will be front and centre in those photos.
It's all
about the good news. Don't deal with the cost of living. Don't deal with the
obvious. Go get the good news picture and everyone will happy tomorrow morning,
except the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
The Members opposite will,
but no one else will.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to have another opportunity to speak to the budget. I kind of want to pick
up on a lot of what my colleague for Conception Bay South had to say. I must say
that I know my colleague does tend to get a bit of a rise out of the government
Members, but he does hit a lot of points that I think are important. I don't
agree with everything he says, but I agree with most things he says, I'll say
that, most of the time.
B. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
I do agree with you most the
time.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I just want to go to the general theme of what he was saying at one
point, at least. That was about the role of Members here in this House of
Assembly. When we're bringing up issues on this side of the House and, in this
case, we're talking about the budget and, of course, specifically under these
departments, I'll focus on Finance. But when we're bringing up these issues, all
we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is communicating what we are hearing from
constituents. That's our role in this House of Assembly. That's every Member's
role, actually, to bring up the concerns that they're hearing from their
constituents.
A common
theme that I've heard from constituents in my district – I've said this before
and I know all Members over here are hearing it, because they're raising these
issues. I'm sure Members on the opposite side are hearing it, but they're either
unwilling or, in some cases, not allowed to say it. But the bottom line is that
I understand, I truly do. I understand the fiscal circumstance we're in as a
province. I get it. I think we all get it.
We've
been having year over year deficits and we have a provincial debt that continues
to grow year after year after year. So we all get that, we're in a tough spot. I
think the general public gets it. I'm sure most people do. But the problem we're
having at this point in time is that these are extraordinary times. If these
were normal times – and arguably when the times were good, governments of the
day should have been putting more money aside. Governments of the day should
have been paying down debt. Governments of the day should have been, many people
would argue, more fiscally responsible with all the revenues that were coming
in.
Now we
had a lot of needs, no doubt we had a lot of needs. But one could still argue
that we spent a lot of money, probably more than we could afford. When my
colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port talks about needs, wants and so on
and what we could afford, arguably, that balance wasn't always in sync when the
times were good. We were taking care of the needs, we were talking care of the
wants, but we weren't necessarily considering what we could afford in the longer
term based on our debts, our year-over-year deficits.
I can
remember at one point, when the price of oil was $100-and-some-odd a barrel,
times were good and we were still borrowing. We were still borrowing billions of
dollars. We still had deficits. I can remember standing in this House of
Assembly at one particular point in time talking about the minister's
billion-dollar shopping spree I referred it to. Because here we had all this
money coming in and we were spending all of it and we were still borrowing more
money on top of that.
So I
understand, and I understand times are tough now, as well. But the bottom line
is these are extraordinary times in the sense of the cost of living for the
average person. These things are out of our control, I get it. We all get that.
We can't control the price of oil; we can't control the price of groceries; we
can't control the price of home heating fuel; we can't control what is happening
in Ukraine. Arguably, we could do more with the taxation side; arguably, we
could do more. Now, how far do you go, as a government? That's the judgment
call. How far have we gone?
Now, the
minister will keep talking about the $14.1 million or the $14.2 million,
whatever it is, in the five-point plan. I appreciate that; I really do. And
there is no doubt that it does help some people. It does help some people. But
there are an awful lot of other people who it doesn't help; that's the part you
keep leaving out. We talk about helping the seniors, but, again, the seniors
that are getting that money are seniors that are in receipt of the supplement.
The seniors in receipt of the supplement are the seniors who, all in, receive a
basic OAS and CPP. That is it.
So if
I'm a senior and I had a few RRSPs or I had a job, say, in the public service or
private industry and I got a little bit of a pension – it could be the most
minute of a pension, it could be a couple hundred dollars a month – I don't
qualify and therefore I don't qualify for this break either. So I got nothing
out of it.
If I'm
someone who's on income support, yes, I got a one-time cheque; I got a little
increase to my supplement. But if I'm somebody who is working, a working person,
someone working minimum wage or a little better than over minimum – I have a
number of people who told me they work two jobs just to try to survive. Guess
what? They got nothing. They don't get a break. Zero, zilch. That's the issue.
So when
we keep bringing this up – I just want to be clear – it's not that I don't
understand our fiscal circumstance.
(Disturbance.)
P. LANE:
Somebody from St. Mary's; I
guess they're upset about the fish plant, too, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
And I'm sure the Member got
it all under control.
But when
we keep bringing forward issues –
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's your mother-in-law.
P. LANE:
No, it's not my mother-in-law.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He got her blocked.
P. LANE:
That's right I got her blocked.
But when
we keep hearing issues from people about the cost of living, about the cost of
fuel and so on, we have an obligation to bring it forward. It doesn't mean that
we're not understanding of our fiscal circumstance. It doesn't mean that at all.
But it just means that these are the things that people are concerned with,
because I think, again, people understand the provincial debt, but they're
trying to survive. They're trying to survive.
As my
colleague said, there are people who used to give to the food bank – and I've
had this said, too. I've had people tell me the exact same thing, actually. I've
had a couple of people tell me: I used to give to the food bank, now I'm going
to have to go and be a recipient from the food bank. That's not an exaggeration.
Some
Members might think that this is all theatre and all that. It's not. I mean, I'm
dead serious. It is not an exaggeration. That is actually happening. You can go
into Mount Pearl, go talk to St. Vincent de Paul at Mary Queen of the World
Parish, go talk to St. Peter's Parish, go talk to the major at the Salvation
Army over on Ashford Drive. They will tell you that food bank usage is up
significantly. They're seeing new faces. People they never saw before, they are
seeing. That is a reality.
I had a
lady contact me yesterday and she was so upset because her oil company just
changed their policy. You used to have to get a minimum fill-up of $300 to get
oil. They just upped it to $600. She said I can't afford $600 worth of oil. I
can't afford it. That was one of the companies. I not going to give the name of
companies.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's more than one.
P. LANE:
Well, it maybe more than one.
But I know I contacted my former employer, I'll put it that way, from years gone
by and I asked him about it, because I had the connection there. He said no,
we're keeping ours at $300 but I know that other oil companies are upping
theirs. The minimum fill-up is $600. She said: Paul, I can't afford it. If I
have to put oil in my tank, that means I can't eat. Is there anything to help
me? I had to say there's not. Unfortunately, there are no programs.
It was
very sad that I had to say to this lady, well, you know, if you want, I can
contact St. Vincent de Paul for you to try to get some groceries. Now, can you
imagine, a woman who had never, never had to go to a food bank in her life and
I'm having to say to her I can contact St. Vincent de Paul for you to try to get
you a few groceries. There is no programs, there's nothing to help you.
Now,
thankfully, when I made the call to the other company, they told me ours is at
$300. This company she's with and a couple of others, they're up. We're keeping
ours at $300, so she immediately called – I guess this morning she switched over
to that other company.
But how
sad it is that somebody had to do that. They can't afford to heat their home.
They said if I did that, I would have zero money – zero money for groceries for
me and my child.
We hear
about seniors who are talking: I'm going to take my medication every second day,
every third day, or I'm going to cut this pill in half. I have the pill,
supposed to have the full pill, I'm getting a knife and cutting it in half and
taking half a pill. That's happening. I've heard Members talk about it and I've
heard it. We're not making this up. It is a fact.
And I'm
not saying that people over there don't understand. I'm not saying everyone
there is bad and heartless and all that, I'm not saying that. I know you're not.
But I'm just telling you the realities of the calls that my office is getting
and I'm sure all Members are getting these types of calls. It's very sad.
So while
I do understand the need of us trying to be fiscally responsible, of being
cognizant of that provincial debt, those year-over-year deficits that's growing
that debt. I understand all that. Given the fact that we are in extraordinary
times – again, extraordinary times – is this the time to say no we can't help?
Is this the time to say it?
Maybe
our deficit has to be a little larger this year than you anticipated. That's not
a good thing to have to say we want to do that, but, realistically, maybe this
year we have to say, do you know what? We had projected a billion dollar debt,
then we got down to $700 million, $500 million, now we're down to $285 million,
or whatever – I can't remember the number, $200-something million, or $300
million. But guess what? Maybe it's going to have to go to $400 million or $500
million like we thought it would be during the mid-year maybe. Because we've got
to help these people right now and then we're going to have to work twice as
hard next year. Hopefully, things will be back to normal.
Maybe we
have to look at things like my colleague from Port au Port said about vacant
positions that keep getting budgeted year over year but still not filled year
over year. So we've kind of got this false number, so to speak, gives the
impression that the money is budgeted for, but we know it's never going to be –
maybe you need to go back to the department and say is this realistically going
to be filled or is this just a placeholder for next year or two years time when
eventually it'll get filled?
Let's
look at the history of it; maybe we can come up with some money there. Maybe we
have to look at some other spending priorities in different departments. Maybe
there are things we're doing in different departments that we'd like to do, we
want to do; maybe we need to do them. But do we need to do them now? That's the
question. Do we need to do them now?
Maybe
there are some things we've budgeted for that we can put off for another year or
two because of the extraordinary circumstance. These are the types of things
that people are asking and questioning. These are the types of things – because
we have a fiscal reality as a province, but then we have the fiscal reality of
the people living in this province.
I'm not
saying do it across the board. There are people in this province, including
Members of this House of Assembly, that as much as we hate having to go to the
pumps – turns your stomach when you go to the pumps these days, turns mine, and
you look at the gas pump and the numbers are just rolling up and up and up –
but, at the end of the day, we're able to suck it up.
I wish
you didn't have to do it. I wish you didn't have to pay it, but, at the end of
the day, you have the fiscal ability, hoping in your mind that this is a
short-term thing as well, that this isn't going to be forever. But saying do you
know what? We've just got to suck it up.
But
there are people who can't suck it up. And the people who can't suck it up are
not just the people who are in receipt of the seniors' supplement or the
low-income supplement. There's a group just above them of either seniors who
have a small pension or the low-income worker who are trying. They're trying.
I often
felt that it's probably the most, in some ways, under-represented group. And
those are the group that we really should be trying to help. Someone who is
actually –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
P. LANE:
– getting up out of bed every
single day, going to work, sometimes working two jobs and everything else, and
other little hobble on the side, everything they can do to try to make ends
meet. Not coming to the government with their hand out looking for anything; not
coming looking for a cent. They don't avail of any programs, they don't come
looking for any programs, but they get up every day and they work hard to try to
make ends meet. And it seems like we can never do anything for them; they're
always the ones that are left out – always the ones that are left out.
So one
of the things, I think, we need to be looking at is maybe the threshold on some
of the programs we have. You look at what the threshold is to get a drug card,
as an example; maybe the thresholds need to change. Maybe the thresholds of some
of the programs for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing – the thresholds have to
be raised a little to be more reflective of the reality. Maybe that's a way we
can help people out a bit as well.
I know
there are no easy answers. But if you're making these decisions, which is all
about decisions, it is all about choices; we just need to be honest with people
of what it is we're doing, why it is we're doing it. If the honest answer is we
recognize that this group of low-income workers and seniors exist; here is how
much it is going to cost to help them, but we value getting the budget to a 2025
balanced budget, that's more important, that's a priority to helping this group
of people. If that is what you're doing – if that's what it is.
Maybe
you need to say, do you know what? It's going to be balanced budget in 2026 or
2027, unfortunately, because of extraordinary times – because it's extraordinary
times. I know the argument can be made that if we keep doing that, every year
will be extraordinary times. I get that, too. Someone can say, well, if we take
that approach, then every year someone can make an argument that it is an
extraordinary time. But I think if we were all – put it this way, I, personally,
think I could justify to any person who asked or challenged me on that, I feel
comfortable that I could justify that these are extraordinary times.
I don't
think anyone would have any – it would be hard for them to justify, given the
fact that the price of gas now is over $2 and it's supposed to go up another – I
think I saw on social media, eight or nine cents or something again tonight,
going up again. Now people are starting to talk about is $3 a possibility.
Whoever would have thought that would happen.
When
you're looking at the price of someone who had an oil tank and they were paying
$700 or $800 a month; now they're paying $2,000 a month – 2½ times what they
were paying before. I think it's far to say that is extraordinary times. I can
defend that it's extraordinary times. I would suggest any Member of this House
should be able to defend the fact that these are extraordinary times. Therefore,
if we have to raise that deficit a little bit more this year than we had hoped,
to help people survive, if we have to make adjustments to the budget, if we have
to put off some stuff that we know really needs to be done, but we can put it
off for another year, or two, then that's what we need to do. We need to find
ways to give people relief. The people who really, really need it; we need to
find ways to give them some relief.
In
general, I think that's what all Members, in one way or another, have been
calling for. In one way or another everybody on this side have been calling for
that. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because that's what we're hearing from the
people who elected us. Those are the real struggles that people are facing.
Again, I
say, people who never went to a food bank, who gave to a food bank, now having
to be a recipient at a food bank. Seniors having to take their medication every
second day or to take a pill and cut it in half. People who can't afford to heat
their homes. People who are having to choose between heat and food. These are
realities, Mr. Speaker. These are the realities that I'm hearing. These are the
realities that all Members, I'm sure, are hearing. I think we have a
responsibility to the people who elected us to do something about it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to be able to get up and speak in this House of
Assembly and thank the constituents from the Ferryland District.
First,
I'll start off by thanking the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL and
her Committee last week or the other night in their Estimates. They did a great
job. A lot of information there to be shared for sure. I'm getting to you,
Minister, as well. The Minister of TI same thing, I sat in Friday evening and
they did a great job in answering questions. It's a pleasure certainly to sit
down and listen to it.
I was
just speaking to a Member here and I said you get up and speak for 20 minutes,
when you first came here it seemed like it was going to be an eternity and now
you run out of time. You have a lot of issues to bring up and sometimes I'm not
really sure how I'm going to go when I get up here, because I'm not here to
fight with people on the other side. I'm here representing my constituents. This
is what they're bringing to me, the same as the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands had said and the Member for Conception Bay South.
I'm not
interested in the fight over there, I'm interested in listening, is what we need
to do here. And that's what we're not doing, in my mind. I've said that many
times here and I continue to say it, it's just something that we have to get
better at, in my mind. We have to get better at listening. It's not me telling
you this, it's my constituents telling me and I'm telling you. So that's where
it's to. And it's very annoying when we don't seem to ever solve any of the
problems.
In here
now, you talk for 20 minutes again and we'll never solve anything. We don't seem
to take any solutions that maybe there or offer some suggestions; we just don't
do it.
I just
listened to the Member, he said there's a limit now of $600 for fuel. That's the
minimum that they can get. Well, I don't know if anybody thought about it,
that's the same amount of fuel. It's going to cost him $300 more to get the same
amount of fuel. It's costing him $600 now instead of $300. And that's exactly
what's happening. They're not getting any more in that tank; they just got to
pay more.
So what
is it that we don't understand about that? Somehow find a tax break for these
people on fuel. That's all we're asking. Somebody come up with something over
there, we're after throwing out solutions and, again, that's something where
we've got to go.
I'll
speak to the Member for Lake Melville. Well, I'm going to tell you, there was a
walrus in Bay Bulls in 1966 and there was no global warming then, so I'm telling
you that it happens. That stuff happens. I had pictures and our neighbour
brought me down to show me when I was about 15, showed me the clipping out of
the newspaper, there was a walrus in Bay Bulls up on the wharf in 1966. That's a
clipping out of the news.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You weren't born then.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I wasn't born, but I seen the
picture, I seen the clip. I was born then, sorry, I was a baby then.
You
know, it's something that happened, and that stuff is going to happen. We look
at the seals, all right? And the Member spoke on that again, I can't get into
the details he got into because it's so much information, it was incredible.
But we
have a Minister of Fisheries, we have a seal fishery that I told you before, we
would stand behind you 1,000 per cent if you tried to do something with the
seals here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a big issue.
Just as
well to be the minister of trout as to be the Minister of Fisheries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
It's unbelievable. We have
not done one thing about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
We've done nothing. We've
done nothing about it, Speaker.
We have
a billion-dollar industry in crab, the federal Fisheries sets the quota, the
fishermen bring in the quota; we collect the tax. So you tell me what the
Minister of Fisheries does in Newfoundland for that. That's my point. We have to
try to get some control of our fishery. We don't have it. We don't have it for
the quotas. It's unbelievable where it's to.
You
didn't give it away, I can assure you of that, but, hopefully, you try to fix
it. That's your job. That is the job of the Minister of Fisheries, Minister of
Forestry, whatever you are. That's the job to try to fix. We'll stand behind you
100 per cent in the seal industry to do something with the seals. I guarantee
you we'll stand behind you over here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I'm going to mention it
again, we talk about electric vehicles, and the minister is over there looking
at me now, and we talk about electricity and trying to get mini-splits or heat
pumps in the Houses, all right? We're going to give them a $5,000 credit. Well,
it's going to cost you $20,000 to change it over.
They're
coming to you for a grant for $5,000; they can't afford the other $15,000. So
there's got to be some program that can help these people switch over. Yes, I've
got a mini-split in my house and I've got oil as my main source of heat.
AN HON. MEMBER:
But you're allowed.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Yeah, I'm allowed. But that
mini-split cost me only $1,500 at the time. But these ones that we're doing now,
we're giving a credit, they're trying to get heat pumps in, they've got to get
ductwork in, they've got to change their electrical boxes, their fuse panels
probably can't handle it or their electrical box can't handle it, so it's a big
expense.
I had a
gentleman call me last week – I'm not making this up, this is fact – this is a
constituent asking me: B'y what is that all about? I said let me get you the
news release on it so you can look at it. So he looked at it, I drove by his
house probably a week later on an ATV with my helmet on. When I stopped and went
into his shed and spoke to him, he said: B'y, I had a look at it, but I can't
afford to spend $15,000 to be able to do that. He said: It's a great idea, but
it don't fit.
I can't
say that gentleman certainly couldn't afford it, he probably could, but it's
$15,000 for him to change over and get the electrical done. It's not made up.
It's a fact and that's what the people are telling us. We're passing it on to
you.
I'm not
standing over here – I've got no interest in fighting with anybody about it, but
my job here is to represent the people and my job is to get up and speak on it.
If I don't do that, then guess what? I probably won't be in the next time, if
you don't get up and represent the people that you're elected to do that for.
That is our job.
Sometimes I look over there and you need a Don Cherry collar on to keep your
necks up with the heads bobbing up and down every time you ask a question!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
It's unbelievable. Every time
you ask a question, oh head rolls back. It nearly drives you crazy.
Unbelievable. It's just unbelievable how it goes.
I live
in a district where there's a daycare centre there and a lifestyle centre there.
I'm going to say a 48-spot daycare and it's full. Well, they lined up when the
building was being built, two years before it was built, they lined up at the
arena to be able to get their spot in the daycare. That's how busy and how much
people are moving into the area and they're moving down from further up in the
Ferryland District up in Trepassey, Calvert and all these areas, coming down to
live closer to St. John's in Bay Bulls and Witless Bay and surrounding areas.
My
daughter said to me that they did a survey at the daycare this year, I'm going
to say probably a couple of weeks ago that she told me. There are 133 people
looking for spots in the daycare and there are 48 spots there.
How long
do you stay in there? How the daycares work, I mean, obviously they're taking
care of a good group of kids here. When you go in there, if your first kid gets
in there, if you have a second kid before they graduate or move out of the
daycare, then your kid is going to get the first right to get in there. So not
somebody that's on the list behind you. If you have a second kid within that
five years, then you're going to get in there to do it. That's how big there is
a demand for daycare in the area.
They're
having trouble. These parents are having trouble getting child care. It's a very
serious problem. Now they have to decide if they're going to go to work? Are
they going to stay home? It's a big problem and I don't know how we solve it.
Now
what's happening in some of the daycares, because you have $10-a-day daycare,
there are people that are coming home from school, going to an after-school
program, and if you own this business, you probably would make the same move
yourself, but there are no rules to stop them from doing that. I'm not saying it
should be stopped, but after they've come home from an after-school program,
well this daycare now, or some of these daycares, are taking advantage of the
$10 daycare. They're not taking the after-school program anymore; they're going
to take the full-time kids that can come there all day, I'm going to say for the
subsidies that they get.
So these
people have emailed me and some of the residents, they emailed me to speak out:
What happens to us? What happens to us, if they're seven year olds and eight
year olds and they can't go to after-school program? Their mom works and their
nan is taking care of them, or trying to take care of them until that happens.
So now they can't get off work early and now they're stuck with no place to go
after school. So it's a big issue. I don't know if any other Members have it,
but I've certainly got it. It's something that certainly should be looked at.
Sometimes it gets so discouraging when you're trying to make good improvements
in the daycare to take this many people, but when that happens again, it's sort
of like we go backwards a little step. I'm sure that you couldn't anticipate
that happening, but the daycares are making their own decisions based on their
business and that's the way that will work.
We did
talk about, the other night in Estimates, we didn't really get into the
discussion on it, but I'll go back to the ATV legislation that we had on Side By
Sides. I was only in one yesterday. I guess it had a roll bar on it and it was
enclosed, but it don't have the ones by your head here. I took my grandson with
me, we had our helmets on in it, but it's not very safe to be driving – in
certain vehicles – with a helmet because of your vision, you can't see.
I don't
want to beat that to death, but it's something that we had agreed to in here,
we've had everybody speak on it. We had letters from seven or eight different
people on this side for sure that gave the evidence and they're getting them
from – that's only seven or eight, I'm sure there are more than that. They
probably received seven or eight each, but seven or eight people have spoken to
it. Now, I'm not against not wearing a helmet, I got to tell you. But sometimes
you have to look at it, does it make any sense.
Again, I
had one of my best buddies say to me his daughter didn't really agree with that.
I sort of explained to him how it worked and what kind of machines and he wasn't
aware of that. But they do see people that are in these hospitals or in the
Miller Centre and places like that, they're in there because they didn't have
their helmets on, on a regular ATV or other ATVs. It's something that, again, in
giving out the details and spreading the good news: you should have these
helmets on, on these Ski-Doos for sure, ATVs and I'm going to say certain Side
By Sides, but, you know, some of them are not needed because of the way they're
built.
Again, I
spoke today on the landlords tenancies act and asked some questions in the House
of Assembly. It's certainly a big issue, for sure, with the price of fuel.
Somebody who is renting an apartment or a house –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
– and they're renting with
heat and light included. So if you had an apartment rented to somebody, you
owned that house – I'm sure there are people here that got their own houses that
they're renting and may have heat and light included; they may not. But if you
got heat and light included, well I'm going to tell you that has changed the
water on the beans for sure. It has certainly changed the water on the beans for
those people in regards to renting. It is a big, big issue for these people to
do that.
So
something that maybe we can look at and change the legislation to help these
people out, but, right now, it's not happening for sure.
These
questions are asked for the right reasons. These are, again, emails that have
been sent to us and we've been asked to ask those questions. So it's something
that we should certainly take care of.
I did
hear the Member for Conception Bay South saying he's fortunate enough to have
agriculture in his area. Well, I got tourism in my district; I got the fishery
in my district; I got oil and gas in my district; and I got agriculture in my
district. So I'm affected by all of those.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No ambulances.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I'm getting to that. I got a
couple of minutes left.
You
know, those are all big areas in my district, I guarantee you. Again, I had my
grandson yesterday and we were going up to the farm and looked at – I'm going to
say he had to have 300 to 400 cows, I never asked him. I should have I suppose
because he owned the Side By Side that I was driving, I should have asked him
after I went through. But to go in there to see the calves, to the next grade up
or a couple years old and then to when they're milking and the automation and
the technology that they have in that area.
I'm
looking at just driving up there and you're talking about fuel prices. He never
said it to me, because I know him fairly good, I'm sure he probably hears this,
he might.
But I
drove up there and there's an excavator, there's a dozer, there are three
tractors, there are three hay trucks, and that's not counting all the other
small machinery. As a matter of fact, he has a truckload of oil every week
dropped to his property. I know that because my buddy used to sell oil and if he
didn't get up there in seven days, he was going to run short of oil in his
operation. He used to say to me: Can you pass it on? I can't have him not
delivering oil every seven days, or I'm going to be shut down. I'm milking the
cows and like – it's unbelievable the operation.
He goes
in to clear land, so you're talking about clearing land. He got acres of land up
there that he's clearing off or trying to clear off with excavators. They're
taking fuel and they are taking oil. That takes a lot of work. He's going up
there, tearing the ground up, flattening it out, tearing up the rock, and then
he's got to go seed it. Again, in the Goulds area here as well, I'm going to say
there are four or five farms there. You'll know in two weeks when you get the
smell in St. John's; you'll be poisoned with it.
But
that's it; they're out spreading the manure to grow the vegetables, grow their
hay, and they're trying to take care of themselves, so they're not buying this
stuff from the mainland. They're trying to grow their own hay and take care of
it. So it's certainly a big issue. It's a big issue in the Goulds area for sure.
It is such a big area. You drive by and you see that. If you're driving out of
the city, you can see the fields where all the agriculture is, so it's certainly
a big area there for sure.
I will
touch on the cyberattack that we had. I think it was in November, the date I
have written down; I think that's when it first happened. We haven't got a lot
of information that's after happening since then. I know it's sensitive
information, but it would be nice to upgrade the public. I know you've done it
on a couple of occasions, but it would certainly be nice to touch on it a little
more, give a little update on where it's to, or if there's any fix coming or
what's going on. It's something that happened, and God forbid that it happens
again, but we've really got to be on top of that stuff.
The same
thing happened last week. I know the minister had spoken on it and some of the
capabilities that they've bought or looked at and they're not really fitting. So
it's something again that we've got to be more careful when we're buying this
data or buying this information to be able to enforce. So another big topic, I'm
going to say.
I will
touch on the ambulance issue in Trepassey. I touched on that a good many times.
The ambulance left Trepassey last year; now they're down to one ambulance. They
leave and go to town. They're in red alert once they leave; they could be out
there seven or eight hours. But they moved to Cape Broyle. There are now three
ambulances there, sometimes – well, there's one manned for sure, but there are
two or three ambulances sitting there, getting calls from residents with an
ambulance – when you look out your window, you can see it – and you got to wait
for it to come from Holyrood. That's not acceptable. That's an hour away at a
minimum; when you make the call, it's probably an hour and a half by the time
the call is made.
It's not
acceptable that that happens in this day and age. Now, they moved it based on
the number of calls. That's what they're saying. The number of calls is not the
issue in the area. Yes, the number of calls could be down. Geography is the
problem. Over there in the government where they're responsible for everything,
I can't remember when the ambulance owner dictated to the minister where the
ambulance is going to go; it should be vice versa. And it should be sat down and
talked about where the issue is.
The issue is geography. You're driving that country from Trepassey and
either way you go, it's 1½ hour, two hours to go to St. John's once you get in
the ambulance. You're driving in winter conditions; you're driving in fog and
rain. So if you're driving in winter conditions and let's say if you left here,
I am going to say it is 1¾ hours to 2 hours to go to Trepassey. If you left in
winter conditions, do you think you can do that in a storm in two hours? Not
possible. Can you do it in the fog? It is probably just the same as a snowstorm
when it is foggy up there, fog right to the ground.
I spoke to the previous ambulance owners who used to do it – she is now
the mayor of the town – and she knows what it's like driving that country and
where they're after staying over the years and where they had to bunk out on the
way back, that they couldn't get back up. Now, there was always a second
ambulance there, but she has had not to make it back there because of
snowstorms.
It is a big issue in the district and there is no reason, I don't see –
yes, you can base it on numbers and you can base it on the number of calls, but
it should be based on geography. It is the furthest place away from a hospital
on the Island portion of Newfoundland. It is the furthest place away. I can't
include Labrador in that because you have to fly here, so on the Island portion,
it is the furthest away from a hospital and it is not acceptable to me.
I speak about it and I remember getting the call, driving in the
Trans-Canada in July, and that was the first news I heard. I never got a call,
other than from the residents who were hearing in the area. So, to me, somewhere
along the way the minister has to speak to the ambulance owner and get this
ambulance reinstated back in Trepassey. It is something that should happen and
I'll leave it at that. I just have to leave it there. If not, I'll go on.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I'll go overboard is
right.
So I will use one quote. Somebody in my driveway the other day, stopped
in, and he said they had a teacher in school – and I'm going to say it was about
25 or 30 years ago. I thought it was really funny. I said: B'y, you never think
on it like that, and that was 30 years ago. He said: One of these days we're
going to have a phone that you're going to be able to speak to somebody and look
at them while you're speaking.
And that has happened more than five years ago – 30 years ago, you'd
never think that. I mean, that's what a teacher is saying. Now, he had some
insight that we didn't have somewhere along the way. But, I mean, we look at it
now and technology, we don't where it is going to stop.
To touch on electric vehicles, again, and the charging stations – by the
time we get enough cars here to use those charging stations, that's going to be
outdated. Not going to be able to be used, somehow – guaranteed. They'll have to
upgrade that, guaranteed. It's like phones. Every year, there's a new phone, new
camera technology that goes with the phones, so all this stuff is advancing. By
the time we get broadband and internet in our district, there's going to be
something new that you'll have to go and change again. Hopefully be able to
change it quickly, not have to go rewire everything and do everything again.
I see my
time is running out; I'll certainly get another opportunity later on in some
debate here to certainly speak about the district.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The next speaker is the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to stand and have a few words on the government service sector and
legislative branch. First of all, I want to bring up the Department of Digital
Government and Service NL. I just want to say to the people, especially in
Western Newfoundland, and I'm sure all around the province, we remember when you
couldn't get into the Motor Registration unless you had an appointment. You had
to wait outside, wait in a crowd; we've seen the pictures out in Harbour Grace
and pictures in Corner Brook. Did you ever think that bringing up public
information and public policy doesn't work?
The
doors now are open. The doors now to Motor Registration are open. You can walk
in. You don't have to see a 45, 50 people line up. You don't have to see that
anymore. They'll go inside and if people don't show up, you can go fill right
in.
So when
people in the Opposition think that the government is not listening, public
pressure works. That's a prime example. After we'd seen the pictures in Corner
Brook and seen the pictures out in Harbour Grace with 45, 50 people in the
lineup, in pouring rain, seniors, it changed. So don't ever forget that bringing
stuff up in this House and bringing stuff, information, and bringing issues up
on behalf of your constituents don't work. That's a prime example of how public
pressure does work, if it's the right decision to make for the minister. Too bad
it took so long of a time, too bad some people had to suffer to go through it,
but it did work. So don't ever give up on bringing things up in the House of
Assembly on behalf of your constituents.
And I
understand government – I understand it; I've been around long enough. They may
not be able to stand up and say yeah, we're going to change that because it was
the wrong decision. They're just going to quietly do it. If you listen to the
people now that I'm speaking to on the West Coast, most of the people who had a
booking may just walk in on a Wednesday morning and not call in and say cancel
my booking.
So you
find now the doors are open, people get through the system very, very quick. I
was over there twice about a month ago and you know the lineup was zero. Walk on
in. You got an appointment? No, okay, stand right there. Came back again, same
thing. You got an appointment? Nope. Walk in. I didn't make an appointment just
to check it out and sure enough the doors are open: boom.
So keep
up the work, I say to all the Opposition Members here in this House, don't think
you're not being heard. You are. It is just that they're not going to announce
that you've been heard. So just remember that.
And
that's the other thing about the helmets, same thing with the helmet issue. I
don't think that is going to change right away now. I think the government is
hell bent – and I know for a fact that there are government Members who are
receiving calls on this. I know the Premier, personally, is receiving calls on
this. But now they said, nope, if we change it, then what's going to happen is
they're going to say they forced us to change it.
What you
need to do is keep the pressure on and show the reasons why it should change.
Show the reasons why if there are four or six people in a factory-sealed Side By
Side going across Newfoundland and Labrador, they have to stop every hour
because of the heat and noise. They'll never enjoy – and the safety issue, the
safety now with the helmet inside and you can't see sideways. I mean, I heard
the minister say, well, there are new helmets out there; well, there maybe, I
haven't seen them. There probably are, I'm not up on that.
But I
can assure you the people that I speak on the Side By Sides, the people who are
the experts out in Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland, say that the machines
were built the last four or five years for safety. They're not the
Mad Max machines flying around 80, 90,
100 kilometres an hour. They're definitely not the Mad Maxes. It's the
factory-sealed ones. They can reach a speed, I don't know, 20, 30, 40 miles an
hours, but people going out are the older people that are going out that wants
to go out and see the country. They don't want to go climbing in through the
bogs and go across all the rocks. They're the ones that want to take it and go
on a trip across the province; go down to the Northern Peninsula; go out as far
as Port aux Basques, that area along the trail. They're the ones that are going
to be using that. So this is why it amazes me that it was done, but we can't
give up.
I say to
the minister, the other day when I brought up about Brad Gallant about the
helmet regulations, I wrote the minister and asked him for a meeting with Brad
Gallant. He would set up a meeting. It would be a cordial meeting; I know those
people, I know that it would be a cordial meeting; it would be an information
session. I haven't got a response.
I spoke
to Brad Gallant two Saturday nights ago at the Humber Arm South firemen's ball.
The minister says, well, he got my number. Well, Minister, there's an official
request on your desk asking for a meeting on the West Coast: Not a response.
I just
got to put that on the record, because Brad asked me to bring it up. Now, people
know Brad Gallant. Brad Gallant is well respected in the South Shore, all over
Corner Brook, actually. He's the fire chief for Humber Arm South, the largest
town, except for Corner Brook, of course, in the Humber - Bay of Islands. He's
the fire chief, well respected, got his kids into the Side By Sides himself,
brings them in for a lot of rides. So I'd say to the minister this was emailed
to you March 3, 2022. Still haven't got a response for Brad Gallant to have a
meeting.
And this
is not a knock on the minister because I'm sure the whole government had to make
the decision. The Cabinet had to make the decision on this. But if you feel
strong enough – and I know I've got people who told me that they called the
Premier looking for a meeting also on this – so if you feel so strong, your
reasoning for it, why don't you meet with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
I say to
the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, would you meet with a
group?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Would you meet with a group?
You did. The Minister of Energy, I've seen you meet with groups before that had
different points of view. But you meet with them. You may go in, you may get
some different issues, but you would meet. That's the key.
I know
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure went into a few meetings, that
when you go into the meetings and people need the roads done, it's going to be a
bit hostile. They're going to express their point of view. But I'll guarantee
you one thing – I learned this from many years – they may not agree with you if
you go in and meet with them, they may have a different point of view than what
you've got, but I guarantee you they'll respect you for coming and talking to
them on their home turf. They'll respect you. They'll respect that.
This is
what I say to the Premier: people are asking for a meeting in your own district
– in your own district. And they're also asking for a meeting in his own
district on the cataract surgery, too, by the way. I'm getting calls and I met
with people from the Premier's own district on the cataract surgery.
So I say
to the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, when you stand up saying,
well, he's got my number, here's the letter he's waiting for a response, through
me, for a meeting.
I trust that will get a response and there will
be a meeting before the May 27 deadline, before the regulations kick in. He
asked me to bring it up. He's a well-respected man. He's speaking for a lot of
people. This is not just one person; he's speaking for a lot of people, I can
assure you that. He is speaking for a lot of people in the Humber Arm South
area, which goes way back to the Lewis Hills; goes way back to Serpentine. They
have all got cabins.
Just imagine now, a lot of them have got cabins in around a few ponds, probably
– I run it, it's like five kilometres in. Now they have got to wear helmets to
go in five kilometres. A little road they did up years ago on both sides, very
flat, now they have all got to wear helmets.
I
could read a couple of emails from a constituent who used to take his kids – two
and three years old – put them in the back seat, put your child seat in the back
seat and now they have to go to put helmets on them if they want to take them
for a ride. Can you see a baby going in a little Side By Side, all of a sudden
trying to sleep with the helmet on? That's what happens. And now they're saying
they're taking the enjoyment from my family away because the kids have got to
wear a helmet.
So
who in this room is going to take their two, there, four year olds – he had two
kids – two and three I think they are and four now – going to take them and go
on over the bogs with them? You are going to take them in so you can go in and
get the fresh air, walk in the woods. Now they can't do it. They have got to
find helmets to go on the little kids with heat in it, the noise that you can't
even speak to them and if they happen to fall asleep along the way.
These are the emails I'm getting on the Side By Sides. I will say again, I do
have a Side By Side, a factory-sealed Side By Side, I think the maximum it can
go is 28 to 30 km – that's the maximum it can go and that's downhill. It's
diesel, downhill. So, all of a sudden, now when we go up across about a minute
and a half ride, we have got to wear a helmet to go up Allens Road. We have go
to wear a helmet to go up Allens Road, cross over and you are on private land.
What a lot of people are going to do – you mark my words what is going to
happen. You're going to see an increase in coyote licence and you're going to
see an increase in rabbit wire. People are going to go in and say they're going
to look first and see where we're going to put our snares at, and you're going
to get an increase in coyote licence. They're going to challenge people then to
say, okay, if you think I'm gone over 20 kilometres, take me to court without
radar. How many enforcement officers do you think are going to be in the woods
with radar? It's not going to happen – not going to happen
I tell
you another thing a lot of people are going to do, by the way. Another thing a
lot of people are going to do, and especially a lot of seniors and older people
– ask me; I'm not that bad yet – they're going to go to a doctor and say that
they need to stop on a regular basis to use the washroom. So if you make
frequent stops, you got a doctor's note and say you got frequent stops. Okay,
don't go over 20 kilometres, even though there's no radar. You see how many
people are going to have doctor's notes saying they need to make frequent stops.
You watch.
That's
the three ways that this legislation – there are so many loopholes – and let
someone take it to court. Somebody 70 years old, 72 years, driving along and say
you haven't got to stop frequently. And that's right in the legislation:
frequent stops. So, people, remember I said this, because if one of them seniors
or even anybody younger, or even with a little kid, make frequent stops, I
guarantee you once that person is charged, it's going to be in the court.
Now,
we're going to have to define what are frequent stops. That's the next issue
that's not defined here. It just says frequent stops. So I'll say to the
minister, with all due respect, because I know it wasn't totally you. I know
Cabinet probably had to do it all, or it was just the minister, I don't know.
But it's her department, and I know how Cabinet works. In order to have
something in, the minister has to bring it forth. So the minister brought it
forth.
Minister, sorry about this, but you're the minister for it. So I say to the
minister, if you're the minister for it, if the Minister for Digital Government
and Service NL is the minister for it, then you're the one the people are
looking for the meeting. So I ask the minister once again, and I gave you a few
suggestions, because I met with a lot of people on the West Coast on this, and
they gave – here are the ways we're going to get around it. And you're going to
see more court action on this.
Minister, I look forward to your response and a date set up in the next couple
of weeks to have the meeting with Brad Gallant and we'll organize Lark Harbour,
Humber Arm South, whatever's convenient for you – Corner Brook if necessary so
you wouldn't have to go down on the South Shore. I look forward to that meeting.
I'll
stop on that, Mr. Speaker, on that topic. The other topic I was going to bring
up is finance for a few minutes. And I know it is easy on this government to say
here's what we want, and we start putting out a wish list. I know that. I'm
understanding of all that. But this is extraordinary times, I say to the
minister. There's got to be a way that we can help out. There got to be. I am
confident that we've got to find some way to help out and us people in this
House of Assembly, we're a bit fortunate. We are.
But the
people who are just on the borderline right now are going to find it tough.
They're going to find it tough. I can assure you as gas goes up, food goes up,
rent goes up, electricity goes up, oil goes up, they're going to have a hard
time. I know, from the bottom of my heart, no one over there wants to see
anybody suffer. I really feel that; I really, truly feel that. This is not
saying anybody over there has no heart or no compassion; I'm definitely not
saying that. But what I am urging government to do – and I heard the Premier
today say it was going to come in phases. There may be another phase. The
Premier said that today – I think it was put on VOCM – that it may comes in
stages; it may come in phases.
I say to the minister, and I won't get into it too deep, look at ways
that we can help now. Because I can tell you, and I know Members opposite hear
it too: What is it we can do? I can assure you – and this is a suggestion to the
minister and I seen it done on many occasions over the years. I say to the
minister, go into a room with the Finance critic, the Leader of the Third Party,
and come up with a way that we can help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
so we all can stand in this House and pass it unanimously. We can do that
because I trust that guy. I trust him and I trust you, Minister, that if three
of you got in the room, you'd come up with a solution that we'll say we'll all
agree upon. It may not be what everyone wants but try it.
We did it before. I can name off times where we sat down in the room and
there was a stalemate and we went out in the backroom and we stayed there until
we got it straightened out, when I was in the Opposition and in the government.
But you got to have the confidence that it is going to be ideas coming from the
critic, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, and there is going to be
good ideas from the Leader of the Third Party.
I know, Minister, I can tell you, if you never had the restraint on you
about the deficit, and I understand that, you would come up with some good ideas
also. And you got ideas. It is just how you go about it because of the financial
restraint. I know that; this is not a knock on anybody. This is more of a plea
for the people who are finding it rough.
But I can assure you, you get three of you together and I'm confident
–and I'm speaking on behalf of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. If three
of you went into the room and came out here together and said, okay, we've got a
way to help out, I'm sure the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands will join me
in standing up and saying, okay, we're going to go with the majority, no
questions asked. Because if it was three parties agreed to something like that,
who are we to say, no, we're going to stand up and try to debate it? I've seen
it done and, Minister, you were a part of it when we did it before – you know
that – when we sat into it.
I'm pleading with you, Minister, because there are a lot of people
hurting. I know some people that were in Opposition when I was in Opposition
back in 2011 and we worked with the government. I'll give you a good example,
before I go. It was the pension from Bowater's – Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
getting a little difficult to hear the MHA.
Thank
you.
E. JOYCE:
The pension for the Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper. The person who I was dealing with was Jerome Kennedy. He
asked me to deal with the unions on his behalf, because I got a good rapport
with the boys; I know them all. And I trust that guy and he trusted me, and we
worked together, giving the information. Every now and then I'd give him a
question – here's what we're going to ask today. He said okay, thanks,
(inaudible). We worked together and we worked out a deal for the pensions. We
worked out a deal for the pensions for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.
I was in
the Opposition and he was the minister. He took my confidence and I took his
confidence, and I trust Jerome Kennedy, every word he said, and he never let me
down. But guess what? When we went out, we kept the mill going, we got the
pension work done, we got the deficit under control for the pension, and it's
all because we sat down with the government at the time, the PC government at
the time, and we worked out a deal.
I've got
to give Jerome Kennedy credit for that, and I've got to give Tom Marshall credit
for that also, to call me over – and Dwight Ball – calling us over and saying,
listen, here's the problem. Can you help us out? And we did it.
So it
has been done in this House. I was a part of it, on the Opposition, and part of
it on government. So I'll just leave that, Minister, with you, and just some
food for thought, please. Because there's a lot of people hurting.
The last
thing I'm going to speak on for a minute is Transportation and Works. I was
speaking to someone the other day about the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was speaking to a couple of guys on the highways. You know what they told me
in Western Newfoundland, highways? Usually in the winter, you get one spring
thaw. This year there was seven. There were seven spring thaws this year;
usually is only one. There were seven this year. So the roads are tough all over
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the climate. They are.
I know,
and I say it to the minister – he's over there listening to me attentively what
I'm saying about Humber-Bay of Islands – we're all scravelling, especially in
rural parts, for money for roads. I know the bind you're in. But understand that
this is our role to do this. This is no knock on the minister, because he can't
control the environment, he can't control the climate, but we can't control what
our constituents bring to us, which is our duty to bring to the minister.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the Estimates of Government Services Committee?
Seeing
none, is the House ready for the question?
The
motion is that this House do concur with the Estimates of the Government
Services Committee.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
is carried.
On
motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy House Leader, that we move to the Concurrence debate for
the Social Services Committee.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that this
Committee now examine the Estimates of the Social Services Committee.
Do I
have any speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just speak to this for just a couple of minutes as the Chair of the Social
Services Committee.
Mr.
Speaker, I sit here and I listen to all my colleagues and we're all kind of
talking from the same songbook. We're all representing the people of this
province; we're all talking for the people of this province, and there is good
and there is bad.
There is
no difference in my district. Just recently in my district, on March 31, one of
my clinics shut down, the clinic in Mount Carmel-Mitchell's Brook. That was a
clinic that a number of seniors accessed and there was access for healthy living
and well-being, but the clinic closed down. Then I have the clinic in Whitbourne
and it's the same situation; we're monitoring it for physicians and trying to
get doctors in place.
However,
the province stepped up to the plate and they put in place some new,
collaborative care clinics. Those collaborative care clinics are probably the
way of the future. There is no doubt that personal doctors are very important
also. I have a son who spent 14 months without his own doctor and now he is a
patient of the collaborative care clinic. I can tell you he has multiple medical
issues and it seems to be working right now. As a parent, of course, my anxiety
would be extremely high if it wasn't working. But we have to adapt to the
present and adapt to the future. That's a reality.
Mr.
Speaker, education, also, in this province during this pandemic, we are all
giving hats off to our educators – our children and our educators. I mean, this
has been a difficult couple of years. The kids were home; you're trying to home
school them. They're using Chromebooks; they're on Zoom; teachers are trying to
teach from a distance and we're trying to continue to move along through a
pandemic. So you have to give credit where credit is due. Our government did
work really diligently to try to address those needs.
Roads:
we have issues with roads; we all have issues with roads. Like, come on, call a
spade a spade here. But there are good things happening. There are some tenders
being announced now. There is some work getting done; it is slowly but surely.
We also
have our weather, you can't ignore the reality of the freeze and the thaw and
the ups and the downs and the two-foot potholes and the whole nine yards. But it
is what it is and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is working
collaboratively with each and every district throughout this province to try to
address those needs, primarily, at first, on the roads that have the most
traffic. That is understandable. We have our ambulances going over, our police –
we have a lot of traffic, people going to and from work. So you need to address
the high-traffic areas first. That's a reality, Mr. Speaker.
I was
here in this House, actually, I was sitting up there when Gerry Rogers, she was
sitting over here to my right, when they announced the All-Party Committee on
Mental Health. I've been here 6½ years and there hasn't been a sitting that we
have not discussed mental health. It is a huge issue and this pandemic truly and
honestly put a huge strain on mental health services in this province. But I
also sat on the Committee and I worked alongside and advocated with individuals
who wanted the new mental health service, the new facility attached to the
Health Sciences to decrease stigma. I've heard a lot of people kind of complain
about that location, but that is a location where everybody and anybody can go
to the same building to get mental health services and stigma be erased.
So, you
know, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we're doing good things in this province when
it comes to social services.
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is another area. In most of our districts,
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is a huge topic. Today, we also saw the new
introduction and expansion with bus passes for seniors. I heard someone over
there saying we weren't doing anything for seniors. I think we're doing a
significant amount for seniors. Seniors are a huge portion of our province and I
can assure you they have not been ignored by this government.
But
that's it, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to address the Social Services.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
speak briefly to this, too, but I do want to start and say the importance of
social services as a whole and the importance of this Committee, and the
importance of those departments. We are looking at, now, many health care issues
announced throughout the province and one of the ones that face us is just
access to health care.
In 2019,
we had eight doctors in Labrador West. Now, in 2022, we have three active and
one on maternity leave. So, you know, in a matter of a very short period of
time, we lost the majority of the practicing physicians in our region. But we do
have seven nurse practitioners in the region that would like to provide more
access and would like that. Those changes need to be made to allow for them to
contribute. I've heard from them, I've talked with them and they want to be able
to contribute more in the access to primary health care. That's something that
really needs to be considered.
I did
bring it and discussed it in my submissions to the Health Accord to Sister Davis
and Dr. Pat Parfrey. Because we need to reimagine and look at different ways to
provide primary care in that. I've said it in this House before and I'll say it
again, when my wife moved to Labrador West, she thought it was strange that we
had doctors. Because she grew up on the Coast of Labrador, where primarily
you're seen by a nurse. So having access to a doctor was something different.
But she preferred it, you know, she had a good relationship with the nurse
practitioners in Cartwright and having the idea of being able to access that
again would be a thing, even in an urban setting.
So there
are different ways to deliver care. We would like to have seen – I would have
liked to see more in this one to address those kinds of things right now. I know
it may be a long process, but it's not a new idea. It's an idea from the past
that potentially could help now.
And
another thing, too, in the Social Services Committee that really has an effect
on my district is housing. We've seen in the last little while the very
significant increase in the price of housing when it came from rental or it came
from the retail market.
We've
seen a very big, significant increase that has priced housing out for almost
every individual. Some properties now are not even worth, a few years ago, even
a quarter of what people are selling them for today. By pricing people out of
housing, it is a very serious concern that really needs, as a whole, to be
addressed.
I saw an
article on it yesterday, talking about how in comparison from the rate of
housing costs and starts in the United States compared to Canada, compared to
the cost of income and the increase of income over a certain period of time, the
average Canadian income didn't keep pace with the average increase in the cost
of housing. They are significantly out of sync.
That has
actually translated over into our province, especially in places like Labrador
West where the mining economy and the significant lack of housing availability
has contributed significantly and it has created a lot of pressure on people of
the region, especially those who rent.
We do
have the threshold going into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is higher than
on the Island, obviously, but, at the same time, people who make significantly
more than even that threshold cannot find housing at this time. It's creating a
lot of other issues, especially for those who want to come to the region and
provide services, most notably trying to recruit and retain health care
professionals
and teachers who want to come to Labrador West and work
but can't because there is just no available housing for them to start their
careers, so it is actually having a trickle-down problem to people.
Right now, we have a significant amount of lack of doctors, nurses, teachers and
all that. And because we don't have housing for these professionals, it is now
impacting the residents of Labrador West. So everything has a cause and effect,
especially when it comes to some of the stuff like health care, education,
housing, access to those things.
We
are seeing an actual direct correlation between the lack of housing and now the
lack of services we are getting in one aspect of it. This is where we find the
problem. We need a more holistic approach in a sense of looking at how do we
provide housing to a place like Labrador West. It does take the Member
responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but it also takes the
minister responsible for Transportation and Infrastructure, especially the
municipal infrastructure side of things, to find ways that we could encourage
housing development in Labrador West. Right now, either it is too expensive to
start or there is just no incentive to do it. It is causing a big, significant
problem in our region.
I
have spoke with both councils. They have land made available to a point, what
they can do, but to develop it and move forward with some of these plots of land
requires a bit of work that even a developer would find too expensive to even
consider or make the houses priced out of even the range of anyone reasonably
wanting to buy a house. It is almost between a rock and a hard place in that
sense, but we need to take a look at how do we remove those barriers.
Another option, obviously, is to start working towards appropriate housing for
seniors who want to downsize and move into something that they can actually
maintain and manage but, at the same time, also apply to everything on one
level, the ability to have home care and everything like that come in and look
at it. Because, right now, the situation a lot of them are in, it just doesn't
suit their current needs and this is where you look at the total whole of
everything.
So
I would have liked to have seen, especially in this, more looking at those kinds
of social services,
per se. It is a need not only in Labrador West, but there are other rural
communities and other communities that are starting to see similar things now.
When you look at the housing, there is a housing need here in St. John's, there
is a housing need in a lot of more urban communities across this province and
then, obviously, Labrador West and Lake Melville and the North Coast.
So we do
have a housing issue in this province right now, and it is a combination of
affordable housing for those who just can't go and get a mortgage tomorrow, but
also a lot of these houses are right now priced out of range as affordable for
most residents of this province. We do need to take a look at housing and how do
we provide it but also how do we get the cost down that is it actually
manageable. Especially in today's thing where you have to choose do I pay my
rent; do I pay for my heat; do I pay for my medication; do I pay for this. These
bills and stuff on the population are accumulating.
Another
thing, we talk about the cost of living and all that stuff and access to
pharmacare is a way to bring down the cost of living. Downloading the cost of
medications that you require to keep yourself healthy and on time. A lot of
seniors are choosing to skip days on their medication or split it in half or
those kind of things. So providing medications and the ability to access them to
the population would also, in one effect, make the population stay on a more
healthy course because they're getting their medication regimen, they're being
provided for and they're keeping up with what their doctor asks of them.
At the
same time, we also take the burden of that cost off the senior, off the
individuals, so it would be one less thing for a person in this province to have
to worry about. It would also do one thing to take the burden directly out of
their pocket and put money back into the pockets of many people.
Like I
said there, there are also a lot of other ways we can get money back into the
pockets of people and help in this time. We look at the removing of HST from
electrical bills. Electricity is a necessity in today's society and having a tax
on it does create a bit of a burden, but it is a way to remove the burden
directly off the people of the province and put money directly back in the
pockets of ratepayers. That is just one thing you could do.
That's
where we look at social services as a whole: How do we help the most mount of
people we can possibly do with a single policy? Pharmacare, dental care,
removing barriers with the MTAP, making sure that people have equal and fair
access to health care. Removing those kinds of barriers and allowing people more
free access to the services that they need and it removes a lot of worry and
stress from the population. That is what a lot of the Health Accord – the first
draft that is out now talks about: the social determinants of health.
When you
think about it, you don't think about it, day to day, what is a social
determinant of health. But when you actually realize everyday things you do,
later on it affects your health. This is the thing, like the conscience of the
province, that we all have to think about. How do we remove barriers from
everyday social services or daily live that would actually improve the social
determinants of health – access to clean drinking water, equal and fair access
to health care, access to healthy foods, providing those kinds of things. That's
the way to help a larger population bring down a lot of the costs but also we
have to do it in a way that we remove the barriers so people can actually gain
access to them. It is not only for the select few.
These
are things that we all want to think about and talk about and we should always
have in our consciousness and consider when making decisions. We look at right
now access to mental health. Another social determinant of health is having good
access to mental health and the ability to receive it. But it is not just
one-time trips or in some cases it is a whole approach where individuals who
require long-term care, in the sense of mental health, access to a longer
program and having that fair and equal access is also important. It helps a lot
of people and, once again, if you go in and help now, it will save a lot down
the road. Not even just in money-wise but it will save that person a lot of
their own personal health down the road.
So we
want to make a population that is healthy, to make healthy choices, but at the
same time you don't want to put any barriers in the way for people to access or
utilize these things. So looking at the cost of living; looking at the cost of
food and healthy food; looking at the cost of access to medical services. It
all, in the end, is one kind of package; it's all one kind of thing to look at.
And that's when you look at changes, or anything like that, you've got to look
at the whole picture of it. Because it all has an effect later down the road.
So when
you look at my situation of Labrador West, where people are having a hard time
accessing rental units or housing right now, it's having an effect down the road
because now we can't have housing for medical professionals, teachers or other
government service employees. We don't have housing for them to come up to
Labrador West and provide service; it's now having an effect on the other end.
So, at
the end of the day, it's all connected. We have to look at the continuous chain
of how everything is connected when it comes to providing social services.
That's the thing we need to look at right now. We have to do it in a way that,
you know, a change now potentially means a reaction later down the chain. So the
entire system of how you're going to do it, it operates in its own ecosystem. So
that's why we have to have a look at that.
I'm glad
that there are some changes coming. I'd like to see it come faster. I think
there are some other little things that we can do along the way while we wait
for the other larger changes. That's the thing we need to really look at is
providing these services for those who actually need them. We look at it as a
whole picture.
Obviously, one of my biggest gripes, and always will be my biggest gripe, is the
current Medical Transportation Assistance Program. The backlog and the method of
which to apply and how the 50 per cent prepaid works and all this is just a very
convoluted system that is not actually helping, but more hindering, from
everything I've seen so far.
I think
it's one of those things that really needs to be readdressed. It needs to be
looked at from a different perspective, from the perspective of those who use
the program, or try to use the program in some cases, and how it actually
sometimes can hinder access to timely health care. It's something that almost
needs to be completely disassembled and rebuilt, in a way that does create
fairness, does actually help when help is required and to be more understanding
of unique situations for a lot of people trying to travel to access health care.
Out of
all the things, it's one of those things that seems to be the most prevalent in
my office, people trying to access this program. So when we put things in that
way, like I said before, it works in the chain, it hinders someone from
receiving timely health care. Sometimes people put off receiving health care
because of it and then, eventually, an individual's health could be affected
down the chain.
So this
is something that, you know, is hindering, it's not helpful and it's doing,
potentially sometimes, more harm than good than it was set out to do. It's
something that I really was hoping would have been addressed in this budget, but
clearly it wasn't addressed. I think that we really need to take it into
consideration how some programs do affect the population, especially when it has
a negative impact on others.
So with
that, Speaker, I conclude.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand here today in the House of Assembly to speak on this important
Concurrence debate. I really, first of all, want to say thank you again to the
people of the District of Harbour Main for putting their faith and trust in me
to be their representative in the House of Assembly. Every day I feel grateful
to have this opportunity, especially when I get the opportunity to speak and
represent their interests.
The
first thing I want to talk about before I get into actually discussing some of
the Estimates that have taken place in my portfolio, I want to talk about
democracy. I want to talk about the hallmark of democracy, Mr. Speaker.
When I
look at the past three years as an elected Member of the House of Assembly, I
think of a few principles that really, to me, represent what democracy and what
this House of Assembly truly means. The first one, I guess, can be described as
collaboration. We hear that word used often in the House of Assembly. And I just
want to talk about that for a few moments before I get into my discussion about
the Estimates.
The
hallmark of democracy, I believe, is collaboration. I know that we have a
political party system that perhaps conflicts with that concept of
collaboration. But I think we need to really look at this again and refocus our
attention on trying to be more collaborative in our efforts in the House of
Assembly.
So, for
me, what collaboration means, it means listening to each other. It requires both
sides engaging, reflecting. It's important for us, as Members in the House of
Assembly, to really – we get into this kind of dance, if you will, where we're
just too quick to call something black or white. We're too quick to take sides,
one against the other. I think we need to leave more room for reflection and
more room for discussion and more room for really, truly, working together.
Now,
that might sound like pie-in-the-sky concepts. I mean, maybe it is not the real
world in the House of Assembly, but I think that we really have to look at this
a different way. The reason I say that is because when I hear from my
constituents, they say that we are not listening. And we're not. We can't even
listen to one another when we're speaking in the House, right. You can see that
right now as I speak. That's the way this whole process has evolved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting a bit too loud, please.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So my
point has been made; we really have lost the ability to listen to one another. I
think that is probably part of the problem. We get so entrenched in our own
views on one side and the other that we've lost that capacity to really engage
and really kind of look at the problems and try to be part of the solutions.
People
are hurting, Speaker. People are hurting in our province right now; there is no
question about it. They can't really find a way because they believe that the
government is not listening to them and that is a real problem that we have to
face.
So,
again, it is up to all of us, each on of us here in the House of Assembly to be
part of the solution. The people of our province are counting on us to do that.
It leaves me, really, when I think about this, to consider what my role is as a
Member of the House of Assembly. What is my role here in terms of leadership?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Members to take their conversations outside. It is really hard to hear the
speaker.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, again.
Like I said, I am left here to consider my role here as an elected Member in the
House of Assembly and for the people that I represent. I guess we try to instill
those values of let's try to work together here, because that is really what the
people want from us. They want to see a government that listens. They haven't
seen that in this Budget 2022.They
really haven't seen that, and we know why: Because they are not listening. They
won't listen when we are in the House of Assembly, so why would they listen to
the people that have elected them?
But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about the Estimates and I am going to
start primarily with my portfolio as the shadow minister for Justice and Public
Safety. And there are a couple of things I will point out, first of all, and I
will say that there were some positives that I could point to with respect to
the initiatives by the Justice and Public Safety Department. First of all,
almost $17 million of funding went to the RCMP. So I think that is certainly a
positive initiative and I think that is important to ensure that our society is
protected and that we are safe.
Also the $1 million funding to the Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue
Association, that also is very important. They perform a very significant role
in terms of search and rescue. So that, of course, as well was a very welcome
initiative to see.
When I also see the family violence intervention court, there was approximately
$392,000 that was funded for that court. I am going to talk a little bit about
that court and its important role later. As well as the Drug Treatment Court –
$326,000 was allowed for the Drug Treatment Court.
So
those are all very important initiatives and I think we have to acknowledge when
positive things happen and when government does take and recognize needs as they
did with those few initiatives. But I think we need to look at a very important
piece of the Justice Department and Justice and Public Safety which revolves
around Her Majesty's Penitentiary. First of all, the issue of the replacement of
Her Majesty's Penitentiary – HMP – and the programming in HMP.
Mr.
Speaker, I am sad to say that, really, that is not left in a very good state, in
my opinion. In Estimates, you know, I have brought this up as well as in the
House of Assembly in my tenure here as critic for Justice. I've asked questions
about HMP. When is it going to be actually constructed? When is this facility
going to be in place? It's been years in the making. When I've spoken to
correctional officers, for example, down at HMP, they don't even believe it's
going to happen. They have such little faith and confidence that this
penitentiary will actually be constructed. I don't know. It's been years we're
waiting for this.
So in
the meantime, while this facility is going to be constructed – I mean the ground
hasn't even been broken yet – it is imperative that we have increased and new
programs and services in this institution and in this correctional facility.
I've asked again, repeatedly, just as recent as last week, with respect to the
mental health supports that are desperately needed in Her Majesty's
Penitentiary, and really there was no real answer of substance, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, there wasn't.
We worry
about that, with respect to the mental health piece. I'd like to say that there
are many concerns that have been raised about Her Majesty's Penitentiary. We
heard the Jesso report and there were many recommendations that were made in
that report, but I'm going to just highlight a few of the concerns that we still
hear from prison reformers and advocates in our community. They are very
concerned about the state of affairs at this penitentiary.
It is
not equipped to handle prisoners with mental health issues and substance abuse
issues – fact. It is just not equipped. So we know that people are going in
there and they're not getting the treatment that they need. Mr. Speaker, we know
that the prison – I stated this even last week. Prison is not only a place
people go to; it is a place they come from. So it's a revolving door if we do
not have the proper supports and rehabilitative programs in place, Mr. Speaker.
Also, with this facility that's down there, the lack of physical space means
it's difficult to even meet security and the health needs of inmates, and also
puts at risk correctional officers as well.
Training
for HMP correctional officers and mental health has not been a priority for this
government; it is not a priority now. We need to ensure that our correctional
officers have the enhanced mental health training that they need in order to
respond to the mental health issues that many inmates have.
I have
heard a statistic and this was some time ago but over 70 per cent – and it is
probably even more than that – of our inmate population suffer from mental
health and substance abuse challenges, yet the programs that are down there just
do not cut it. They do not cut it. When I asked last week to see if there were
any kind of enhancements to be made to these programs, there was no significant
commitment by this government to do that, so that concerns me as well.
We have
a great opportunity here, because we're going to be replacing that institution
sometime – I'm not sure when. I don't know when it is going to happen. I hope,
unlike many of the people that I speak to that don't really have faith that it
is actually even going to happen, that in replacing the HMP, this is an
opportunity to put in progressive and positive programming to modernize the
programming that we can have. To enlighten, even – because, Mr. Speaker, we know
that it is only in our best interests when we ensure that inmates are
rehabilitated, that is the best protection that we can have as a society. It is
the best protection because we know if they are rehabilitated, they're going to
come out and they're going to be better citizens. They're going to be reformed
if we have the proper treatments in our penitentiary.
But we
have to be able to get to root causes; we have to be able to deal with the
substance abuse problems and issues that are down there and that people suffer
from. We have to implement innovative and corrective programming, and we don't
see that down there. What we have is very inadequate and insufficient, but we
need to make sure that we have these kinds of treatments and rehabilitative
programs, life skills training, vocational training. Again, that will ensure,
when they have served their sentence, that they come out into our community and
they are rehabilitated, that they are reformed, that they want to be better
citizens. As I said, prisons are not only a place people go to; they come from.
We need
to have as well a comprehensive mental health strategy. Now, I know that the
Minister of Health, when I asked this question last week, he said that they are
making initiatives and they have things on paper. I'm hopeful that this will
mean that there will be a very mental health comprehensive strategy in place.
But we need to ensure that that's followed through on, and that's something we
have to really follow carefully.
So
again, with respect to the replacement of the HMP, it's been years, Mr. Speaker.
It's a long, drawn-out process. It's taking forever. Correctional staff at HMP
have told me directly that they are skeptical and even doubtful it will happen.
When they have such little confidence, that is concerning. The majority of
offenders, Mr. Speaker, in confinement will return to society. So we always have
to remember that. They will come back in. So rehabilitation has to be the end
goal here. It has to be the end game here. It has to be a major goal.
Otherwise, our people that are in there are not going to be returning as
productive citizens. I don't want to see a revolving door. I don't think anyone
here wants to see that in place. So we need to ensure that we have things in
place to prevent that, so that they're not more likely to reoffend when they get
out. That puts every one of us at risk in society.
So it's
in the best interest not only of the inmates, it's in the best interest of the
correctional officers; they spend so much time in that facility when they're
working there. It also will protect each one of us as citizens. It will protect
our own society.
Mr.
Speaker, HMP is a key piece here; it's very important for us to be able to have
the proper attention given to the programming, to the mental health needs that
are down there.
One
final point, I'll bring it back to what I started with in the beginning of the
speech. It's about collaboration, Speaker. I got a great example, just as recent
as today, about the lack of, really, attention and listening by our Minister of
Justice and Public Safety, and that is in reference to the Elizabeth Fry Society
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I raised
this question in Question Period, how disappointing it was for this fantastic
organization that is there for – it is a women's serving organization. It not
only involves the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality but it also
involves the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and other ministers as well.
But this is such an important organization in our criminal justice system and
they are being ignored – they are being ignored, Mr. Speaker.
They
provide housing. Yes, I know that they met with the Minister of Finance, too. I
know that but I have heard from them how disappointed they are with the response
from this government, yet such fundamental things that they do. They provide
housing; they provide individual and group programming; they provide outreach
services in Newfoundland and Labrador; they provide traditional housing that
supports women upon release when they come out of the Clarenville Correctional
Centre, and upon release from
court.
They provide three meals per day for individuals at the Elizabeth Fry. These are
staffed with social workers, life-skills coordinators, outreach workers,
advocacy coordinators. They received 217 referrals for services from other
community-based organizations including Thrive; including Stella's Circle;
including St. John's Status of Women; Eastern Health and John Howard. Yet, they
were basically, ignored by the government. In particular, with respect to
funding, they haven't received funding.
So we would just ask the government to at least recognize this important
organization and the important, vital work that they do. Hopefully, they will
reassess and see about providing the much-needed financial support that this
organization needs to survive.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again, always a pleasure to get up and speak on behalf of the wonderful
residents of Topsail - Paradise – always a pleasure to do so. Before I get
started, I want to just put out a welcome to 166 Ukrainians that came into our
province today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
Wonderful to get them on the ground. I hope they stay here. But that is our next
step: We have got to work
on the retention. But it's always good to see them land here, and I suspect once
they get a feel for our province they won't want to go anywhere else. So thank
you for all the work that's been done there, to get them here and hopefully keep
them here.
I also
want to speak to our Estimates. I sat in on the Estimates for Health and
Community Services. I applaud the minister and his staff. They answered all the
questions we had; they were very good. In fact, the Minister of Tourism had said
we're very cordial in the meetings. And why wouldn't we be? Unlike last week, I
think the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville had said something about:
Why aren't you your jovial self when you're asking questions?
Those
are serious questions that I ask, because we're asking on behalf of our
constituents and on behalf of the residents of the province. That's our job, as
Opposition, to ask those questions and look for answers. This is specific for
the Minister of Health and Community Services. This is specific to him, and I
know he's listening. He's always listening, because he always has an answer.
Last
Wednesday, I got home, after I did that bit of fear mongering in the House. I
was late getting home because I coach a soccer team on the side. I volunteer my
time there. I got home and the phone rings. This is my mother calling. Now, I
hadn't had a chance to look at the news, but she says: Paul, I saw you on the
news tonight. I said: Oh, good. She said: You were mad; don't be getting angry.
So I'll
tell the minister, I'll try to tone it down. I think those were the words.
You've got to listen to your mother.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
No, I'm not sure about that,
but she might. I'm not sure.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Now that actually sounds
reasonable, but Mom's a smart woman.
Okay,
moving on, we're talking about the social sector.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
I'll stay; I'll keep it
jovial. You mightn't like what I'm saying, but I'll keep it jovial.
T. OSBORNE:
In the meantime, tell her
that her favourite MHA said hello.
P. DINN:
Yeah, she sees him all the
time.
Anyway,
we're talking about social sector, and the social sector takes up, well, almost
two-thirds of the gross expenditure in the province. So it's a huge sector.
Health and Community Services is almost 40 per cent, 38.8 per cent. Those are
huge numbers. I'm giving the minister a free ride here. But, look, I respect the
position he holds and the department he has to deal with.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Well, I won't go that far.
I say
that because, as the shadow minister for Health and Community Services, the
amount of calls I get is just outrageous.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
No, there not all positive
calls. In fact, I'm not sure if I got any positive calls, other than the Member
for Topsail - Paradise, they say he's doing a wonderful job in the critic role.
I hear that a lot.
When we
look at what we just went through, we just had Volunteer Week. We just had
Mental Health Week and this week is Nursing Week in Canada. Volunteer Week, the
theme was: Volunteering Is Empathy In Action. We'd be nowhere without our
volunteers, really. You think we have a big budget now, the amount of value that
volunteers bring to our community and our province is huge.
Mental
Health Week, the theme was This is Empathy: Before you weigh in, tune in.
So you see the trend, the empathy, putting yourself in other people's shoes,
when you're volunteering, when you're dealing mental health issues, or dealing
with individuals who have mental health issues and before you weigh in, tune in.
Of course, the nurses, we answer the call. They tune in and
they answer the call. I cannot say enough about our front-line health care
workers for what they're doing, what they've done and what they're expected to
do. The work they put in on a daily basis in this province is just huge – huge.
I thank them and I'm sure everyone in the House of Assembly here today thanks
them.
But it
goes back to the empathy part of listening to what people have to say and trying
to understand that and come back with the best response, not necessarily one
you're going to agree on. So when I go through the social sector, the social
sector is about people; it is about people in this province. Many of the items
in health care – a lot I've learned about in the last year and it's amazing what
you learn. So I am going into this in an objective sense, I have no
pre-established notions on what I'm hearing other than the people calling me are
people with lived experiences.
Some of
the things I've dealt with is IVF, having IVF services here in the province. We
know it's clear that there was a commitment made to provide those services in
the province. In the interim, there is a $5,000 subsidy to help with that, up to
three cycles, so it would be $15,000 in total. Which, I know, from hearing from
people with lived experiences, is not nearly enough and it is not what was
promised.
The
other night I was at a house and the little 5-month-old child there was the
product of two loving parents, but also an IVF process. There are so many out
there who could avail of this more easily and readily if it were available in
the province. Because the $5,000, yes, it's a help, but it's still not going to
help a huge majority of those who have to come up with the thousands and
thousands of extra funds to conceive and have a baby.
We talk
about some solutions, I've heard from so many with diabetes and so many talking
about continuous glucose-monitoring devices. I've listened to diabetes Canada;
I've gone on a number of Zoom meetings with different groups talking about that.
I've got a stack of papers and reports at my constituency office. The benefit of
having these monitors is unreal.
In fact,
just today we were talking about a case, an individual, who couldn't travel to
get her vitals done in terms of her sugar levels. B'y, if she only had a CGM,
she won't even have to leave her house to do this. It frees up people to be more
active in society.
As I
said, when you talk about savings, if diabetes leads to 30 per cent strokes, 40
per cent heart attacks, 50 per cent of kidney failures that require dialysis, 70
per cent of non-traumatic foot and leg amputations and it's the leading cause of
blindness, an investment in these devices, if they reduced them minimally is
going to be huge savings.
I read
another report here in the province that talked to reducing how these devices
would reduce the ambulance calls and would cut in half their visits to the
emergency room. Just imagine how many of those calls then could be utilized on
others with more serious issues. How many of those visits to the emergency room,
if it's cut in half, could be utilized by others. It's a savings. It makes us a
healthier environment and population.
Mental
health, there are lots – and I'm hoping tomorrow I'm going to find out a little
bit more through a meeting on what's available in mental health. I think I have
a good grasp, but if I listen to people with learned experiences, they're still
looking for long-term continuity of care resources.
I was
inundated with calls last week after the Wednesday Question Period around mental
health and the 811 line. Individuals were calling me and telling me it's not
true, you call into that line, they've been put on hold. I got some emails from
people who suffer from mental health who said the last thing we want is to punch
in numbers on a keyboard. So I can only go by what these individuals are telling
me.
Then we
hear from the service provider in the news, who – well, I mean, what do you
expect? They're going to praise it as much as they can. If someone is selling me
a car, you're not telling me what's wrong with it; you're telling me what's good
with it. So it's the same that way.
So not
everyone is pleased when it comes to mental health. We really need to start
looking at that more closely in terms of long-term continuity of care resources.
Of course, the financial strain we know on people almost doubles mental health
issues.
I talked
about diabetes: we're the highest rate of many chronic illnesses in this
province. Huge numbers and, as I said, many of those are the aftermath of poor
sugar levels and a glucose monitoring device could very much help there.
You talk
about the cost of living. We see the price – I'm not sure if the price of gas
went up another 10 cents tonight, I stand to be corrected, I haven't been out,
but there was another increase today. I don't know how people can do that, how
people can afford to drive, let alone afford everything else that is affected by
the cost of fuel.
The
Medical Transportation Assistance Program that provides a kilometre rate to
individuals who have to drive outside a certain distance to get to their health
care. That hasn't changed. So they are getting less mileage, literally, for what
they are getting.
Our
seniors' homes – our seniors are our largest demographic. It's getting up to
30-odd-or-more per cent. We are the fastest aging population in Canada. Our
seniors matter. We have to start listening to them in terms of what services
they need and what health care they need, and they need to have choices. Not
every senior wants to go into long-term care. Some want to stay in their own
home. But it comes down to having the resources and, in many cases, the human
resources to give them that choice.
We
talked about the backlog of surgeries. That's part of the back and forth in the
House with the minister. That's what we do. That's our job in here. I'll talk
about how BC have basically eliminated their backlog. The minister was telling
me how Regina has a huge backlog. At the end of the day, who cares about BC and
Regina? We care about Newfoundland and Labrador. So let's use both of those and
come up with a solution that helps deal with the backlog.
A
gentleman called me the other day – he sent me an email. He had heart issues,
serious heart issues, actually, and he needed to get diagnostic tests done. He
needed to get a cardiogram done. He called in here to the Health Sciences. They
sent him a letter. He got the letter in the mail. This was two weeks ago. He
opened it up: January 2023 was his appointment for an echocardiogram. You do the
math. Eight months time. You are there with a heart issue.
Do
you know what he did? He called around to all of the health centres in the
province and asked them: Can you do an echocardiogram? This is what he did. I
believe it was Gander. He called on a Friday;
Gander hospital said you send me the referral. He got the referral faxed out on
that Friday; he was done the following Tuesday – done the following Tuesday. He
went out, he spoke to the technician out there and he basically said how busy
are you? And she said, well, 8 to 4 every day; you know, not bad. Nothing wrong
with it; I think that is probably what it should be for most of our health care
professionals, rather than getting 24-hour shifts.
So his
point was why is there not a connection? If you go into a hospital here, if you
go to the Health Sciences, and they tell you in nine months' time we'll get you
the echocardiogram, why are they not saying, you can go here or you can go here
or you can go here and get in there quicker? Why are they not saying that?
The
point made out in Gander was why, if that equipment is not being used after four
in the evening, why is there not a retired technician or someone called in who
may want to do some during the evening? Look, there may be reasons for not doing
it, but unless we start exploring these options – and this is not even looking
outside the box – and listening to the people, there may be solutions that are
staring us right in the eye.
Imagine,
he went from eight months waiting, to having it done in four days, an
echocardiogram. The stress and anxiety that was relieved from that person made a
huge impression on his health. He certainly wasn't stressed out. We know stress
and that is not a good thing when you're dealing with heart issues or in this
House of Assembly at times.
Look,
we're in the middle of Nursing Week; we have so many front-line workers that put
in outstanding efforts. I got calls today on one of the collaborative care
clinics. I'm not disputing the concept at all. I think it will work in some
areas; it is not going to work everywhere. But we are getting calls. I got a
call today from an individual who was at the Mundy Pond one: went in, was
registered and then never got in. Was told to come back the next day.
I was
told by another person who called me – actually, it was a doctor, a young doctor
called me on this, on the collaborative care clinics – and she indicated some
days you're getting a bunch of patients that come in that need to see the
doctor. They need to see the doctor. They don't need to see the nurse
practitioner. They don't need to see the pharmacist or the RN, their situation,
if triaged; they need to see the doctor.
So this
young doctor's comment was how does that relieve the backlog? And most chances,
though, that doctor may be a family doctor that left their own clinic. So what
we bring in and what we put down may look perfect on paper, may look good on
paper. But we've got to start listening to the individuals out there who are
utilizing these services. The ones that are going there and utilizing these
services on a regular basis.
Yes, you
can talk to clinicians, that's part of it. Yes, you can talk to service
providers, that's part of it. Yes, you can talk to the health consultant who
provides the 811 line, that's part of it. Yes, you may sit around a table and
have one or two people there with lived experience around the table. But at the
end of the day, the number of calls you get from individuals who are dealing
with lived experiences and are telling you exactly what happened, exactly how
they're treated, exactly what they need and offering solutions, then there's no
reason – regardless of what side of the House we're on – we shouldn't be
exploring those options.
My time
is up and I'll have my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
good to be able to finally stand in this hon. House at this late hour and speak
to the budget and, of course, Concurrence for the Social Services Committee.
Before I get into that, I would like to acknowledge that yesterday was Mother's
Day. I would like to wish Happy Mother's Day to the mothers here in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Of course, to my own mother
and to my wife and, of course, I speak on behalf of all 40 Members of this House
when I wish Happy Mother's Day to all mothers and those who have taken on the
role of mother, across our beautiful province. I want to say that, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
I had the opportunity to be in historic Gander this past week. I had the
privilege of attending the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador symposium.
This is a group of elected officials that are gathered from across our province
under the direction of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the
privilege of listening to the hon. minister speak several times. It was
different topics that she did speak on: regionalization, the Municipalities Act
– and I know I'm getting accolades from the Minister of Tourism, and I
appreciate that. She also spoke to the code of conduct and to mandatory
training. All were relevant to municipalities across our province and those
elected officials who were there.
But
there was one thing that I heard her say, and I appreciated that she said it
because it made a lot of sense. Those municipal officials that I spoke with as
well appreciated that. She said that when legislation comes before her
department, that she's putting it through the common-sense lens. I thought about
that, and that means a lot. Not only to us in this House, but to the elected
officials on a municipal level that she is representing. I'm hearing that as
well. I'm speaking to many people across the province. But that common-sense
lens I did appreciate and I said I give credit where it's due, and I do
appreciate that comment, Minister.
With
respect to the budget – and, of course, while we were in Gander, we had many
conversations with municipal elected officials. They're concerned for their
municipalities, for the level of support that's coming from the department. I
know that she has said it in Estimates and she said it again while we were at
the symposium with respect to the municipal operating grant at $22 million, but
not limited to. And that's important because our municipalities are going to
need that help going forward. It is important. So with respect to the minister's
comment on not limited to, we will be remembering that, when needed.
We'll
come to the budget. I was disappointed with respect to the budget, no line item
there for regionalization. I know the minister has spoken to that several times,
but it is concerning and it's concerning municipalities across the province when
we look at no line item in the budget for the discussions on regionalization.
We've had discussions with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. They came
and spoke to our caucus; I'm sure as they spoke to yours. And it was concerning
to them as well because when you're moving a plan forward, it all has an
associated cost.
So that
was one thing that I was concerned about, Mr. Speaker, with respect to not being
in the budget, and of course the municipalities are aware of that as well. It
was said earlier that this is now Municipal Awareness Week. So I would like to
applaud all municipal leaders throughout our province for taking on that
leadership role. I know the importance of it; we have colleagues in this House
who know the importance of municipal leadership. And it's quite important. The
quote I've said, it's the boots on the ground and the first line of defence for
any government issue, whatever level of government – municipal, provincial or
federal. So I do appreciate the work that the municipal leaders do and I'll be
recognizing Municipal Awareness Week in my district, as I'm sure all of you will
as well.
AN HON. MEMBER:
To the municipal leaders.
J. WALL:
For the municipal leaders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Mr. Speaker, I had the
opportunity, as I said, to speak with many elected officials while in Gander. We
discussed the cost of living. Of course, it came up on a regular basis. One lady
from Central did say to me, an elected official, that this budget isn't helping
the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian with the cost of living as it
continues to rise in our province.
We've
spoke about that here. I know the parameters that the minister is working under
with respect to the amount of support that she's able to give but when elected
officials and municipal leaders are saying this, because they're hearing it at
their level as well in their municipalities, that it didn't help the average
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, it resonates with me as I went through the
conversations.
The
Premier has said here in the House that it didn't go far enough. My colleague
from Stephenville - Port au Port said additional measures may be coming. So I
look forward to that, because additional measures are going to be needed. Only a
segment of the population was supported in this budget. I know it was an
important segment. However, going back to that quote from the lady from Central,
it doesn't help all average Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We will
be seeing some taxes come through with this budget with respect to the carbon
tax and, of course, the sugar tax that has been spoke about so many times here
in the House. Again, they're saying that it's not the answer. Extra taxation is
simply not the answer when it comes to the level of engagement that's required
here.
Mr.
Speaker, we look at the cost of fuel. Someone just mentioned that it's going to
be rising again tonight. I wasn't aware of that, but I'm glad I got the
heads-up. When you look at home heating fuel and the cost of diesel, we've spoke
about that here many times, but it bears the need to be repeated because the
necessities that we all look at day to day are becoming more and more
unattainable, especially for low income, middle income, our seniors. This is
concerning. The level of concern that it puts on my shoulders is heavy, and
everyone feels it. There's no one here that doesn't feel that from their
district.
But we
were told today, with respect to the level of taxation, I believe it's
approximately 43 cents, what was spoke about earlier. This is something that
government has the ability to move on in some way, shape or form with respect to
a portion of that. We did put forward an amendment with respect to the budget.
We look forward to some changes being made, if at all possible, when it comes to
this budget coming down for all the province.
I heard
earlier today a colleague spoke about the cost of diesel and with respect to the
shipping costs to companies. I had a good conversation Saturday afternoon down
at Mile One Centre – Mary Brown's Centre is called now, I'm sorry. There was a
dance competition there and there were people from all over the province
there for the dance competition, from all districts. There were 20 different
dance companies from across the province. But the dance studio company who
brought everything in from New Brunswick spoke about the cost of getting
everything here.
That cost was put on to every dancer that was there at
the competition and, of course, my daughter was one of them. That is where it is
also felt when it comes to the extracurricular activities that families are
putting their children into, and this just happened to be dance. I know it
happens with all of the other activities as well, but that company had to come
here from New Brunswick and they bore the extra cost of coming here and that
cost was put on to the young men and women who are dancing here in that
competition and, of course, we all feel it. It is all passed down to the
consumer and we do feel it.
So
the cost of living, no doubt, is getting more and more – it is harder and harder
every day when are looking at the average person trying to survive with respect
to choosing between heat, food and medication. I have said it here before and it
bears repeating with respect to seniors splitting medications and rationing
insulin. It is difficult. No doubt, it is difficult, but we see this on a
regular basis and we are hearing it from our constituents, as I am sure the
government Members are hearing from theirs as well.
One
of my colleagues spoke about food sustainably earlier. I don't' have the same
accounts as my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port. I didn't go door to
door with a wheelbarrow full of fish, I can tell you that. But I did have the
privilege of being under the guidance of my uncle – my father's older brother,
and he was a fisherman. I saw how hard he worked and how hard he worked to make
a dollar. And how far that dollar went then compared to how far it is going now.
So
it certainly hits home when I hear accounts, as my colleague from Stephenville -
Port au Port said, with respect to the fishery and how hard they worked. And I
know that the fishery is an important aspect of our economy today and, as we
spoke earlier, the crab fishery brought in a billion dollars. Is that correct?
Well, it could be much more than that, Mr. Speaker.
We
look at the fishery in our province not only sustaining but to grow and to bring
more economic development and to bring more money into the coffers of the
province. It is important. I know the former Member for Cape St. Francis was the
critic for Fisheries and it was a very good fit for him because his family lived
in it and he is now living in that fishery. I applaud him for doing that, for
taking on that role.
It's no doubt not an easy one, but it's one that he's enjoying and he's making a
difference for him, his family and to the coffers of the province. So I applaud
him for that.
Mr.
Speaker, one of my colleagues spoke about affordable housing in their district,
and it's no different in mine; I'm surprised to see that it is such an issue in
my district, but it certainly is. When you look at the private businessmen,
these companies that are building affordable housing in my district – I have to
applaud them – before they've even broken ground, the buildings are spoken for.
They're purchased, or they're rented.
So the
need is there for affordable housing; we have seniors who are unable to continue
to live in their homes. We have seniors who are struggling and they're looking
to downsize, and this level of affordable housing in my district is very
welcomed. We do not have a large number of it, but it's growing more and more
each day with respect to the private business, to the private industry providing
affordable housing for residents in my district.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to touch on the public transit. I had a conversation
with, again, several residents of the City of St. John's with respect to public
transit, and to talk about the expansion on the Metrobus passes. To quote the
minister: Metrobus passes are now expanded. It used to be just for those on
income support. Now it's for seniors, youth at risk, so we're expanding out the
program. And I'm not disagreeing that the program didn't have to be expanded,
but I do know that the City of St. John's, the council was quite upset with
respect to the expansion of the program and the decrease in the budget.
So for
them, it made a difference of $300,000 with respect to what they could provide
and what they were supposed to have to operate, and that does make a hit on the
municipality, no doubt. I do know that some years back, when I was mayor, I
collaborated with the other mayors in my district, and we tried to have public
transit come in to the District of Cape St. Francis. We saw a need for
university students; we saw a need for seniors who didn't want to drive downtown
to go shopping, but the option was there for an extra route to be put on for
Metrobus in my district. And we worked hard for that, and I'll give a shout-out
to His Worship from Torbay, who championed that.
But we
couldn't get anywhere with it, because it wasn't feasible. It wasn't feasible to
put another route on for that particular area of town, and of course I border on
the border of St. John's. So that was unfortunate because we thought that we had
a good plan to help our seniors, to help our low income, to help our students.
Unfortunately, it didn't come to fruition.
That's
something that we have to look at with respect to what is required to operate
this service. I do know that the City of St. John's has to supplement the
Metrobus program each year, and it's becoming harder and harder to do so. I just
thought I'd mention that with respect to public transit. It's not available in
my district; it's not available in many districts. Of course, most of us in this
House, I think it's available to just the city districts and it's unfortunate.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that several colleagues spoke about Crown lands and I'm going to
have a – oh, he's just perked right up, as soon as I said it, with respect to
Crown lands. It's better than trout.
Mr.
Speaker, I do know that I had good conversations with the minister with respect
to Crown lands and a particular build in my hometown of Pouch Cove. Habitat for
Humanity wanted to come in to do a build in my town with respect to a piece of
property, and that was a good thing. A family was going to benefit from this.
Unfortunately, we do have some hang-up with Crown Lands. So I'll ask the
minister if he'll look into that again. We looked at it some months back and
can't seem to make any headway with it, but I would appreciate the minister's
help with respect to that. I look forward to your reply on that, Mr. Minister,
with respect to that Habitat plan.
I spoke
about the fishery earlier and I can't say a lot about fishery in my district. We
do have some recreational fishers. The professional fishers do fish out of St.
John's or other ports, but I will mention we did have the walrus in Middle Cove.
I'd like to applaud the staff that looked after that situation with respect to
the amount of public that were at that site. I do know that there were several
people who tried to get closer to the walrus. It was for their benefit and
safety that they didn't, so I applaud the staff that were on site doing that
work and keeping the people safe. Sometimes we just need that little extra
reassurance that the staff are there, and I do applaud the staff that took part
in that for sure.
Mr.
Speaker, just to briefly touch on education, I do know that I'm hearing from
many teachers in my district with respect to teacher allocation for the fall. I
do know that I've been in contact with school councils on the French immersion
program for Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay. Currently, they have two classes
of French immersion, looking at going back to one in September, with one class
of 27. My wife is a kindergarten teacher; I know full well the parameters that
teachers operate under. It isn't easy, especially in kindergarten, but when
you're bringing in French immersion as well, I do know that 27 is too much, too
large of a class for the teacher to make any headway with 27 students teaching a
different language.
So I do
ask the minister – I did write his department today – and I know that he is
listening and I give him credit for listening and for helping out. I do
appreciate his attention to that and for the response that I am going to get. I
do know that the school council works very hard trying to provide the education
for our children and the teachers do the same with respect to French immersion.
So I look forward to an update on that, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
make one last point, and I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands made it
earlier. I can't disagree with him. We are living in extraordinary times; we
certainly are. Everything is not as cut and dry as it was or as it appears to
be. When we leave the four walls of this hon. House and we go back to our
districts, I'm hearing it and I know government Members are hearing it as well;
these are difficult times. I am glad and honoured that the residents of Cape St.
Francis put me in this position, to speak on their behalf, and to work on their
issues and I do thank them for that.
Speaker,
I do thank you for your time and your attention and I shall take my seat. Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
the House ready for the question?
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, Report of Social Services Estimates Committee, carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by, my friend, the Member for Conception Bay South, that this House do
now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
This
House do stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, 1:30 p.m.