PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

First of all, in the Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome parents of MHA Brian Warr, Margie and Harold, and his sister Jane; they are visiting us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: In the public gallery, also joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement, I'd like to welcome Rick Fennemore, Principal of Bishop Abraham Elementary and Henda Akoubi, Child and Youth Programs Counsellor with the Association for New Canadians.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also joining us from the Town of Triton is Mayor Jason Roberts and Deputy Mayor Pat Williams.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia West - Bellevue, Stephenville - Port au Port, Ferryland, St. John's Centre and Baie Verte - Green Bay.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker

Today I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Lions Clubs that play a huge role in communities within the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue. When caring people join together, roll up their sleeves and take action to make their community better, it's truly a beautiful thing.

The Lions are an international, non-profit organization made up of volunteers who come together to raise money to give back to their communities in a time of need. They support our seniors, our youth, the sick and many others in their communities. They come together to take action and serve their neighbours.

From helping individuals in need, supporting other non-profit organizations and being strong community leaders, I stand here with pride today to know we have such a great organization in our communities for people to utilize and admire.

I am calling on all constituents in our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue to support the Lions for the plethora of support they provide on a daily basis.

I ask all hon. Members to please join me to say thank you for their dedication in making our communities stronger.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Being the parent of a sick child is perhaps one of the scariest times in a parent's life, states Stephanie MacNeil.

A group of moms from the Bay St. George area, who shared the unfortunate events of having a sick child, developed a connection like no other. Although they all shared different stories, they were there for each other over the years with an ear to listen, a shoulder to cry on or a hug coming from someone who was experiencing a similar journey.

In 2017, this group of moms, who named themselves the Frequent Flyers, decided they wanted to give back to an organization that had given so much to them: the Bay St. George Sick Children's Foundation.

With support from local businesses, the group organized fundraisers such as dances, silent auctions and, most recently, a steak dinner and dance. Their efforts have raised over $20,000 to date. Besides financial assistance, the group also provides much-needed emotional support to other families in the area going through similar experiences.

Today I rise to salute the members of the Frequent Flyers: Stephanie MacNeil, Shelly Collier, Candice Bartlett, Robyn O'Quinn, Nancy Blanchard, Nadine Butt, Stephanie Downey and Valeda Drake.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the individuals of the Ferryland District who were selected to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in the Canada Winter Games in PEI from February 18 to March 5.

In attendance were athletes: Mike Gosine from Tors Cove, Rachael Tuff from Witless Bay, Alex Kennedy and Jack Kennedy from Bay Bulls, Danielle Arbour from the Goulds, coach Mark Lee from the Goulds, managers Jenna Connolly from the Goulds and Tracy Coady from Cape Broyle.

Being chosen to participate in a sporting event of this magnitude just proves the dedication and hard work that each individual put forth to their chosen sport to be selected to participate. At this time, I would like to send out a special congratulations to 17-year-old Michael Gosine of Tors Cove, who took home a bronze medal at the games in men's boxing in the 75-kilogram weight class.

Please join me in congratulating all individuals from the Ferryland District as well as from parts of Newfoundland and Labrador who represented the province so well in the Canada Winter Games.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This past Friday, March 17, I attended Bishop Abraham Elementary's cultural fair as part of Education Week activities to celebrate the diversity of their school community. School staff worked closely with Henda Akoubi of the Association for New Canadians to organize the event, which was also open to the public. Inclusion and diversity is at the heart of everything Principal Rick Fennemore and his amazing staff do. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of attending their virtual visit to Mexico.

Bishop Abraham is a centre-city, K-6 school with 30 staff and approximately 255 students representing over 25 countries: Vietnam, Israel, India, Jordan, Libya, Philippines, Ukraine, Turkey, Eritrea, Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Jamaica, South Africa, Ethiopia, Morocco, Afghanistan, China, Lebanon, Peru, Oman, Albania, Tunisia, Togo and, of course, Canada.

Principal Fennemore says that they are fortunate at their school to learn from the many cultures within their walls. Better Together was the theme for Education Week 2023. The cultural fair was an opportunity to educate and celebrate all the amazing cultures in their school.

I ask Members to join me in congratulating Henda Akoubi and the dedicated staff of Bishop Abraham on a successful cultural fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise, acknowledge and celebrate the most influential person in my life. Born in Argentia, the fifth oldest of Nan's 13 children. Educated at St. Patrick's Convent, she pursued her studies in commercial and was employed with Confederation Life Insurance prior to having her family.

Life could have taken a different turn for Mom. My grandmother was hanging out clothes, turned to see her two-year-old daughter being carried away in the arms of a stranger. A fisherman from a foreign trawler offered money to Nan for her child. He left empty handed.

Mom made sure we all knew how to swim. It was important to her and it was passed down through our generations.

Curling was her sport and she played well into her 80s. She represented her province at the senior ladies lawn bowling championships and for sure Mom is Brad Gushue's biggest fan.

A proud townie, Mom and Dad returned back to the East Coast upon retirement. Mom and Dad reside in their own home where she loves feeding her birds daily and is an avid viewer of anything newsworthy.

I invite my colleagues to join our family in celebrating today 90 years in the life of our lovely Mom, Margie Warr.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

This province has a strategic plan for financial improvement that ensures prudent fiscal governance and responsible debt management. The objective is to balance budgets, transform and modernize government, and manage and lower debt.

Under debt management our focus is on optimizing the sinking fund performance, enhancing the province's liquidity position and improving Treasury management.

Just two weeks ago, I joined the Premier at the London Stock Exchange to officially launch the province's European borrowing program. Newfoundland and Labrador has the option now to issue bonds in the European capital market, in addition to the existing domestic Canadian market, to meet its borrowing requirements.

Diversifying the province's investor base and broadening the reach to international markets provides an opportunity to continue to lower borrowing costs. This is part of our commitment to improve Treasury management.

The province has also developed a Future Fund, taking a portion of non-renewable resource revenues and investing it for debt repayment and future opportunities. In this fiscal year, we have contributed $157 million to this fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Speaker, our plan is working.

In just two days I will deliver my fourth budget as Minister of Finance and I look forward to further sharing how we are responsibly managing the province's finances while continuing to invest strategically.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. As the Minister of Finance mentions the budget, I must take the opportunity to outline what the minister's budget must include.

The budget must include real advantages in primary care. Signing retention bonuses are one thing, but this budget must find a way to provide primary care to the 136,000 people who don't have a family doctor. The budget must reopen the Whitbourne emergency room, the Bonavista ER and many other ERs whose doors are closed more often than they are open.

The budget must also help make life more affordable for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by reducing the price of food, preventing the carbon tax from increasing the price of home heating fuel and gasoline.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, it costs too much to live in a province where health care, early childhood education and seniors are suffering due to the Liberal government's inaction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Fiscal management should be inherent to any sitting government. We thank the public service for their work in this, but we remind the people of this province and this government that $157 million could have been invested in many other ways that would make life more affordable for residents, like taking the HST off the cost of home heating.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to introduce an initiative regarding the coverage of certain medications under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

I am pleased to announce today, that effective March 1, 2023, coverage for several anti-coagulants or blood thinners have been expanded under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program to open benefits to Apixaban, Rivaroxaban and Edoxaban. Changing these drugs to open benefits allows easier access for individuals taking these medications.

These drugs are effective for a number of conditions including the prevention of stroke and treating blood clots. Prior to this initiative, these medications were only available through a special authorization process. Removing the requirement for special authorization improves access to these medications, improves the quality of life for affected patients by reducing blood work requirements and helps limit the demands on our health care system. Approximately 3,500 patients are anticipated to benefit from this change in listing status.

Speaker, the change in status of these drugs on the provincial Prescription Drug Program signals our government's continued focus on improving access to health care for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Speaker, any time there is an enhancement of access to medications, it is good news for the people who need them. In this case, approximately 3,500 patients in our province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program serves as a critical program and needs to be enhanced wherever possible. However, there are many in our province that do not have access to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program and are falling through the cracks. The cost-of-living crisis in our province has driven many families to the brink and have forced many to decide between food, housing, heat and their medications.

This is indeed a good announcement for 3,500 people in our province, but I encourage this Liberal government to also think of the countless more that are faced with impossible decisions every single day.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, Speaker.

Speaker, right now, in this province and in this country, we are in need of universal drug coverage. We do thank them for this change, but, at the same time, we need to be working towards universal drug coverage for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians currently go without drugs or, in some cases, pill splitting or other things.

So we do thank them for this change, but, at the same time, we encourage that we need to work towards universal pharmacare.

Thank you.

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.

The fishing industry was blindsided last week with another blow to the coming season. It took over 100 union members to storm a federal minister's office to get a meeting to discuss the issue.

Premier, we're only weeks away from the fishing season, what are you doing to ensure a strong season for our fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows, we have a good relationship with the FFAW and stakeholders involved to ensure that this fishing season is positioned well, despite the challenges in the marketplace. I think both processors and fisher people alike understand that there are significant global challenges within the marketplace beyond anyone's control, Mr. Speaker, but we are here to ensure that both sides are working together as the minister has done so eloquently in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry needs action here to ensure this industry is viable in this province.

Recently, your Minister of Fisheries said he is content with the status quo in our fishery. We have crab frozen in storage, mackerel uncertainty, capelin in critical zone and now another blow to the crab harvesters in our province.

Premier, has your government fallen out of touch with the reality of the fishing industry in our province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say it's a privilege to be here after just getting back from the Boston seafood show, which is basically the reset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAGG: It's always a great opportunity to get up here and talk about our fishery – the strong, vibrant fishery we have in this province. I think, right now, the realistic side of it is that our fishery is into probably a reset. I think it's been the understanding by everybody.

I've had meetings with the ASP, as well as the FFAW. I continue to have meetings with these people. I know they are meeting jointly to try and work on something right now in the fishery. The Member opposite talked about the issue from yesterday. That is a federal situation that has to be dealt with. It has to do with some linings offshore and the biomass, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, this industry shouldn't be in reset. It should be surging forward to a $5-billion viability in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Once again, the Liberals are reactive instead of proactive.

I ask the Premier: When are you going to pick up the phone and call your friends in Ottawa to ensure our province's strongest fishery remains viable this season?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we're all incredibly proud of the fishery here in this province, Mr. Speaker. It's part of why we're here as people and it's something that, I think, both sides of the House support.

We continue to have conversations with our federal colleagues with respect to the importance of the fishery, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is a vibrant industry. It will continue to be a vibrant industry and we will continue to ensure that their voice is heard in Ottawa and elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is in that there are global forces at play right now taking China out of the marketplace, taking Russia out of the marketplace and an excessive supply of snow crab, for example, in cold storage. There's nothing I can do about that. There's nothing the Member opposite can do about that, but what I will do is continue to ensure that the people in Ottawa understand how important the fishery is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, well, you tout that you have such a great relationship with Ottawa. Let's see something produced at the end of the day so the fishing industry is viable in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Under a Liberal administration, we have see constant failures in our province's fishery. We have a Premier and a minister who allowed the federal government to walk in and cancel the mackerel fishery.

I ask the Premier: Will you call on your federal government to reopen the mackerel fishery or will you remain silent on this issue like you have on the 3L crab?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and once again it is a privilege to get up here.

Our fishery is very strong in this province, Mr. Speaker – very strong. As I said in my last answer, I just got back from the Boston seafood show. Crab today sells for $5.50 on the market, Mr. Speaker. That's what it sells for into the United States and around the world. So we've done all we could. When we were at the Boston seafood show we had a booth – we were one of the only provinces across Canada to have their own booth set up at the Boston seafood show and we were very busy. I can attest to that because I was at the booth for most of the trade show. 

We are doing our part; we are represented. When you come around for Newfoundland and Labrador, people understand we have good, quality fish coming from this province and it is unfortunate that the forces of the war in Ukraine have caused havoc into that.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has expired.

I remind Members to put your phones on silent or vibrate, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

And the fishing industry is a very viable one here, not because of the policies of that administration, but because of the people in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: If the Premier would spend more time supporting the fishing industry than suing his own Privacy Commissioner, then maybe we'd be in a better place here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: Can the Premier tell the people of this province why his government is suing the Privacy Commissioner in order to stop him from investigating the cyberattack?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows, the cyberattack was incredibly stressful to the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, it is important that a robust, fair review be undertaken. We just want to ensure that there is such a robust process in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

A. FUREY: If the Member stops chirping, I am happy to answer, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: We want to ensure that there is a fair process in place; one that does not have an apprehension of bias, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: One that does not have an apprehension of bias, so the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can have a full and fulsome review of what happened, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we're in a sad state if you cannot entrust your Privacy Commissioner to do what is right for the people of this province in Newfoundland and Labrador who was appointed by that administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner was hired, in part, due to his extensive experience in health care. Now your government is arguing that he can't use that experience to do his job on behalf of the people of our province.

Premier, why are you blocking the Privacy Commissioner from doing his job?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the Member for pointing out that the Privacy Commissioner's extensive background and history in the Department of Health –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

If it continues, Members will be named and they will lose their speaking privileges.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: It is because of the Privacy Commissioner's previous background as a member of the board of NLCHI and assistant deputy minister in the Department of Health that the scope of some of his questions relate to his previous role and that, by definition, creates a possible reasonable apprehension of bias that an objective person, a reasonable person in this province might see that.

It doesn't mean that he does have a bias towards the situation, but we do have a duty to make sure that everything is done properly and fairly to ensure it's thorough and transparent for the public and that there is no bias in the situation. This investigation needs to happen and I can guarantee it will happen, but this is a part of the process that needs to take place first before any further questions are asked and before any bias creeps into the investigation.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, it's the first time in my 40 years as a civil servant that I've heard knowledge of a civil servant is a detriment to them being able to do their job, Mr. Speaker. That's an embarrassment.

Last year the former Health minister said that a 2020 cyberthreat assessment contained no red flags. Yet, the Privacy Commissioner has found that the document actually says significant IT vulnerabilities exist.

Why is the Liberal Government launching a cover-up?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I do want to address the preamble because this is a very important issue for the people of the province with regard to the investigation into the cyberattack, which I'll say again needs to happen and will happen. But first, a comment that knowledge is not a thing that should be valued in the public service.

Unfortunately, people that do have knowledge, that is what creates the conflict. I don't know if they've ever heard of something called a conflict of interest. When you're in a conflict of interest, you should remove or recuse yourself from the situation. Again, we look forward to the investigation being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: I'm happy to stay here for the whole Question Period and answer the questions because it is important that we inform the other side about why this process is being taken. Another fact that they got wrong is the government is not suing the Privacy Commissioner. The government is just asking for the court on an objective ruling with regard to reasonable apprehension of bias in this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll remind the Minister of Justice, we are well aware what conflict of interest looks like, and we're waiting on –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: – investigations as a matter of fact. So I think the government opposite are well aware we know what it's all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, last week in questioning, the minister dismissed concerns about the delayed pay grid for early childhood educators, saying operators had asked for more time. Speaker, operators have contradicted the minister's claims in the media.

I ask the minister: Will he stand and apologize to the operators he insulted last week?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Just to be sure, it is very, very important to this government and to me as Attorney General that everybody understands the situation with regard to the court action being taken from the government and the Privacy Commissioner because facts do matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I want everybody to understand why it's being taken and it is because there's a possible reasonable apprehension of bias that the Privacy Commissioner may have because of his previous dealings and his role as assistant deputy minister of Health and a board member of Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. As the public knows, the cyberattack was into the Department of Health, it was into NLCHI, so it is important that the court clarifies that for us and for the public as a whole.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: A further insult to the operators who are waiting on an answer to my question, the minister decides to use his time to be on his soapbox.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: I'll ask it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: The same rules apply over there, Speaker.

SPEAKER: It does apply. Move on with your question, please.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, last week in questioning, the minister dismissed concerns about the delayed pay grid for early childhood educators saying operators had asked for more time. Speaker, operators have contradicted the minister's claims in the media.

I ask the minister: Will he stand and apologize to the operators he insulted last week?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the question, Speaker.

I'm delighted to have this opportunity to present here for the House a list of the meetings that the other lady who is discussing this with the Member opposite says never happened. These are the meetings. There were 11 under my predecessor going back to July of 2021. The most recent of these town halls requested by this individual was as recently as March 13.

This discussion about delaying payments was made in conjunction and at the insistence of the entire sector. Her business partner sits on the provincial committee that asked for it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: I'm not sure what lady he says I'm talking to. I'm not talking to a lady about this. I'm really comfortable with my facts and they're well-placed people as well. I guess we can compare notes all day long but that's not productive, obviously. Whatever meetings they had, they're not working.

Speaker, operators feel – quote – confused and frustrated by the minister's claim that they had asked for more time. This is simply not true according to multiple operators who spoke to the media.

Was the minister misinformed or did he misinform this House?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

There are three representative groups within the sector, each of whom is represented on the committee and how they choose to communicate with their members is not something that we can arbitrate upon.

That request I have in writing and I'm quite happy to bring those letters to the House to be tabled from other participants in the sector. They were adamant that they did not want to get involved in any one-off payments going back to the 1st of January. They wanted more time to get the wage grid sorted out.

There will be, for the benefit of ECEs across the province, an announcement coming in the very near future about the wage grid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Stay tuned. We've been waiting for months and that's the promise, we'll wait and see.

Speaker, operators have indicated the new wage grid should've been done long ago. Now government is scrambling, as we heard just now from the minister. Operators said they never saw a plan.

Again, why is the minister blaming child care operators in this province for his failures?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

We are the sixth jurisdiction – will be – to come out with a wage grid. We will be very competitive with those other jurisdictions. As I show here, there have been multiple meetings at every stage where we, as a government, have disclosed what we could.

But there were multiple town halls at the request of the operators to clarify questions. We answered them as we could, when we could. Happy to discuss it further, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: The minister needs to realize those meetings were not productive. That's what we're hearing. You can meet all day long, but if you're not going to bring anything to the table, it's a waste of time, Speaker.

Speaker, according to The Telegram story, as late as last week, government had a town hall, as he was just saying, with operators and asked – this is what they asked in this town hall, let's talk about meetings – how they felt it should work – two weeks ago. Speaker, we're less than two weeks from the proposed implementation date and the minister is still on the drawing board.

Will you convene an urgent meeting with the operators' association and apologize and convene something meaningful?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, multiple meetings, multiple discussions, quotations taken out of context from a town hall in a meeting mean very little, Mr. Speaker.

These individuals are valued representatives of valued groups within this province. There will be an announcement shortly about a wage grid, which will put ECEs in this province at the head of the pack, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll once again say it's disrespectful – it's totally disrespectful – to this full operation, all the child care operators in the province. It's total disrespect.

Speaker, the only wage grid details operators were given is $25 an hour for Level II ECEs. Minister, Level II ECEs already make more than that.

Speaker, is the minister's solution to the child care crisis to insult operators and actually pay its staff less?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

Payment for ECEs has been a patchwork quilt of hourly rates, which are paid through the Operating Grant Program as well as top-ups. Come the wage grid, there will be a unified single payment to the operators to be given along to the employees as a salary, which is pensionable, taxable, whatever, depending on the circumstances of their employment.

The facts of the case are that no one will actually make less under the new system than they do on the current one, and a lot will make a lot more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, there was a serious incident Friday in Mount Pearl when a school bus had a catastrophic mechanical failure resulting in injuries to students on the bus. One student had to be taken to hospital.

I ask the minister responsible for Service NL: Has this bus been seized as part of the investigation?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

School bus safety is incredibly important; something that our highway enforcement officers always prioritize is school bus inspections. All school buses are inspected before the beginning of the school year and then we have a rotation of inspections. The bus in particular in question was inspected last summer and then they had another inspection submitted to us as late as January of this year.

At the moment, our highway enforcement officers are working very closely with the RNC to do an investigation on this very important – we need to resolve this important issue.

Our thoughts and well wishes go to the families. Obviously, whenever children are on a school bus and there's an incident, it's all hands on deck to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: The question was: Was the bus in particular seized? We need to know that, Speaker. The rear axle almost came fully off the bus for something that was inspected in January, that's very unusual. We're lucky this isn't a much more serious incident.

I ask the minister: When was the last time her department inspected this bus? Will she table that report, and was the other bus seized?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very pleased to announce that all of our school bus inspection reports are on our website. Anyone in the public can view them at anytime.

Our highway enforcement officers did inspect that bus in the summer before school started and, in particular, that school bus in question was inspected by an official inspection station in January of this year and that report was sent to us. If it hasn't already made its way to the website, it will be imminently, Speaker.

In terms of the bus, it is not in operation at the moment obviously, as there is an active investigation by the RNC and our highway enforcement officers are assisting with that.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

I mean, an axle coming off a bus that was inspected in January, there's something wrong. There's obviously something wrong and all of our kids deserve better than that.

Speaker, the safety of the students travelling to school must be paramount.

Has the minister ordered a complete inspection of contracted busing in the province after this incident?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

School bus safety is incredibly important. All our school bus inspection reports are on our website, anyone can have a look at them. We inspect 100 per cent of the fleet before school starts in September and then we have a rotation where we periodically do 20 per cent, 30 per cent of all school buses throughout the year.

In this particular instance, our highway enforcement officers did a visual inspection before the school year and then in this particular bus also they had an inspection done by one of our official inspection stations. That report was sent to our office.

Obviously, whenever there's a school bus incident, it's taken very seriously. The RNC are leading this investigation which our highway enforcement officers are fully participating in.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

Obviously, what's been working hasn't been working. Whatever the department has been doing hasn't been working. Because if that was inspected in January for an axle to come off and students to get hurt, there's something not right there.

What has the department done since this accident to ensure that this does not happen again in the near future?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to reiterate that we take school bus safety and the safety of children on school buses is paramount. I cannot stress that enough.

This investigation is being led by the RNC, which our highway enforcement officers are fully participating in. There was an inspection done of this bus by an official inspection station and that report was sent to us in January of this year. I encourage anyone of the public; our bus inspection reports are available online.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, according to Dr. Janine Hubbard, the vacancy rate for psychologists throughout our province is over 50 per cent.

I ask the minister: How can we ensure the people of our province get the mental health care they need with a 50 per cent vacancy rate for psychologists?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've had good discussions with Janine Hubbard, Mr. Speaker, and with the association. We've put a market adjustment in place to retain the clinical psychologists we have in the province. We are focused on recruitment as well. They are part of the group that we're looking at with Come Home benefits.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we're in a globally competitive environment for recruitment, but it is an essential service to the people of this province and we are determined to recruit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

With psychologist vacancy rates over 50 per cent in all of our health authorities, access to mental health care in our province continues to suffer and, in particular, lack of long-term continuity of care. This government has been in power for almost eight years.

I ask the minister: Why does access to long-term mental health care continue to get worse on your watch?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the market adjustment that we've put in place for clinical psychologists was really just recently. Many of the individuals had left the health authority positions to go private because of pay. It was not just pay; some of the discussions that we've had with the association were around other issues within the work environment. Government is working to address those as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's amazing, after eight years, they're only recently now putting in market adjustments. It was reported this weekend that four psychiatrists in the Western Health region left the province last year. Western Health sent a letter to patients telling them they are unable to provide follow-up appointments or medication refills for those without a family doctor.

I ask the minister: What are people without a family doctor supposed to do?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously, that is not an ideal situation with the letter that had gone out. I believe Western Health had addressed that letter as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on recruitment. You look at the initiative we put in place just last week, Mr. Speaker, for example, in Bonavista, to recruit doctors to Bonavista. That has been successful. We have two full-time and one half-time position in Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: They are still recruiting in Bonavista.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, they've already started recruiting, now, under that same initiative for New-Wes-Valley. Next week, they'll start recruiting for Baie Verte. Then once we're able to recruit to those locations, we'll announce other locations that are in need of recruitment as well. But it is something that this province is focused on, Mr. Speaker, ensuring that people have the physicians (inaudible) –

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you.

Let's bring the focus back to mental health here. The letter also suggested that patients should consider private options available in the community versus the public system.

I ask the minister: Is this an admission that this Liberal government has failed patients that require long-term continuity of care?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I addressed the family doctors is that was the question: What would people do without a family doctor?

Mr. Speaker, continuity of care is important. We've put a number of initiatives in place in terms of mental health in this province, Mr. Speaker, including long-term mental health. Whether it's Bridge the gapp, opioid treatment, or the Assertive Community teams that we have in place, Doorways, the Mobile Crisis Response units, Strongest Families Institute. In fact, Towards Recovery, 54 of the recommendations now are substantially complete, Mr. Speaker.

Do we need more psychologists in the province? Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, we're working on that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, the family of an 82-year-old woman is speaking out after another horrible incident at a long-term care centre in our province. The son is raising concern about a lack of attention to the injuries his mother suffered in the immediate aftermath, saying it took days to assess the scale of the injuries.

I ask the minister: Why did it take so long to help this woman?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, our thoughts certainly go out to the individual, to the family. As I'd indicated last week, obviously, the first priority is the individual as well as the family. Mr. Speaker, if it has taken that long, that is something that we can certainly look into.

I can't get into specific issues of a specific individual on the floor of the Legislature, as the Member knows, but I am certainly happy to meet with him and to try and do the best we can for that individual and for their family, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, Fonemed is advising people who call the 811 HealthLine to see a family doctor; ironic considering that many of the people calling 811, I suspect, are doing so because they do not have a family doctor in the first place.

I ask the minister if he is able to tell us if Fonemed is also directing people to call Patient Connect NL if they do not have a family doctor and, if not, will he be directing them to do so.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have sent correspondence to Fonemed to ask that they look at their referral recommendations. We also understand from Fonemed that those who are referred to a nurse practitioner within Fonemed, there is less than 1 per cent of those that are referred then to either an emergency department or a family doctor. I also understand Fonemed is focused on recruiting additional nurse practitioners to ensure that individuals don't have to be referred outside of the Fonemed system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This retention question comes from a family doctor deeply concerned about the fate of their family practice and their patients. Family physicians are leaving their practices at an alarming rate; the loss of one physician can destabilize an entire medical practice, making it vulnerable to closure.

The question she has for the minister is: How do you plan to support the existing family practices in Newfoundland and Labrador in providing essential health services to the people of our province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for his question because it is a good question.

The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have eight Family Care Teams in the province today. We've just announced today an additional 10 Family Care Teams, Mr. Speaker, to assist with individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have a virtual care public tender that is under review that will provide virtual care to any patient in the province who is not attached to a family physician. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have put incentive on top of incentive on top of incentive in place in this province to attract family physicians and other health professionals to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

The federal government is on its way to introduce anti-replacement worker legislation in workplaces that are under the federal jurisdiction.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Labour, when will he table this province's anti-replacement worker legislation?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

As the Member knows, as minister of Labour it's a very fine line between balancing the rights of the workers as well as the ability for the employers to maintain their ability to keep employment in the province. We're continuing to work with our federal colleagues.

I'm at a FTP, I think – a federal-provincial-territorial meeting – in the next month to discuss this very issue with the federal minister.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

With the announcement of new Family Care Teams today, we have to be concerned these teams could take doctors from rural care centres. We witnessed this happen at Whitbourne. They told us they lost two of their emergency room doctors to collaborative clinics and to locums.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: What steps are you taking to prevent this from happening to other rural health care centres?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It does give an opportunity to highlight that just yesterday we announced the rural retention bonus for family physicians in this province. Mr. Speaker, on top of that, we've announced the $25,000 retention bonus for individuals in the province. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we announced just last week $200,000 to attract to the Category B sites throughout the province.

We've already seen success with that. We will continue to expand on the number of sites as we see success with other sites in the province.

Recruitment and retention is one of our top priorities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, my last question was about retention, not recruitment. So I'll follow up with this again from the family doctor.

According to the family doctor I spoke to, it can cost them up to $60,000 just to set up a practice and up to $50,000 or more annually just to cover administrative, clerical, insurance and other costs.

If a doctor decides to leave a practice, it not only orphans the patients but increases the patient and financial burden on the other doctors in the practice and potentially creates a domino effect of other doctors leaving.

I ask the Premier: What financial assistance and supports will his government put in place to help current – current – family doctors and family physicians maintain their practices and remain open? Not to recruit, but what will we put in place to help the current family practices?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

What we will do for current family practice doctors, Mr. Speaker, is what we announced last week which is a $25,000 retention bonus –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: – straight to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sir, you asked about a retention bonus. That is a retention bonus. Your question was directly about retention. This is $25,000 for retention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that I will move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, March 21, 2023.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Member's Day on Wednesday, March 22, 2023, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall then adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 2023.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

Just to inject some accuracy in one of my statements earlier from Question Period. The Member on the early child care advisory committee is in actual fact the association partner of the lady who is generating correspondence with the Member from Conception Bay South, not the business partner. I didn't want there to be any confusion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Approximately 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live with mental illness. Only about 40 per cent of the people affected by mental illness and addiction seek help. Seventy per cent of mental illness develops during childhood and adolescence and most go undiagnosed. Even more troubling, less than 20 per cent receive appropriate treatment.

Emergency and short-term care isn't enough and it is essential more long-term treatment options are readily available.

Therefore, we petition this hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide access to long-term mental health care that ensures continuity of care beginning with psychiatric and neuropsychological assessments being more accessible to the public so they can access proper mental health treatment and supports on a regular and continuous basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of conversation is getting too loud. I can't hear the Member's petition.

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I think it was just this past Monday, we saw the – we have a young lady who's out here, who's been advocating for long-term mental health supports on a weekly basis. I think it was week 120. When we talk to or whenever we raise questions on this, we get a lovely list of all the short-term measures that are in place.

In talking to the association for psychologists of Newfoundland and Labrador, they will agree that those measures provide great quick and early access, but they do not provide intensive, long-term, evidenced-based therapies needed by many and typically provided by psychologists. They go on to say that they want to ensure psychologists who are in schools are involved in the interpretation and diagnosis of assessments.

As I said earlier, 70 per cent of mental health problems begin in childhood and adolescence. Individuals out there cannot afford to be waiting for some continuity of care for long-term supports. The piecemeal band-aid approach of going in and getting the immediate care first off is fine, but you cannot just send them away without a plan of care for them so that they can address their mental health care issues and be contributing members of society.

This is the main issue here. The main issue brought forward by many of these mental health advocacy groups is around long-term continuity of care. I'm hoping that this budget is going to have something in it to address this because our mental health has gotten a ton worse since COVID and it hasn't gotten better so we need to address this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, this petition is a request to provide affordable access to insulin to all who require it. The reason for the petition:

Diabetes is a widespread and potentially debilitating condition. Neglecting to address the growing issue will reflect a much more costly, deadly outcome on the behalf of taxpayers. Insulin was intended to be supplied to all people as a life-saving Canadian invention, as it was intended to be provided at little or no cost. This is not the reality for many who struggle with diabetes; and

WHEREAS 34 per cent of people in Newfoundland and Labrador are diabetic or pre-diabetic, with a projected increase to 38 per cent by 2030; and

WHEREAS diabetes is the reason for an alarming percentage of heart disease, stroke and dialysis due to kidney failure, blindness and amputation; and

WHEREAS diabetic medications are far too expensive for many diabetics to afford. Many don't qualify for insurance, don't receive health benefits at work or lost insulin coverage from their benefits for various reasons; and

WHEREAS Banting, Best and Collip, the trio who isolated insulin, sold their patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each because they wanted everyone who needed access to insulin to have it.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure easy, reliable and affordable access to insulin for all residents suffering from diabetes, as insulin is a life therapy and life-saving medication.

It seems, Speaker, that in many cases here in my time as MHA, people looking to get necessary medication, whether it's to maintain sight, it's a fight to get government to fund this, to fund those necessary medications.

It should be an easy equation to figure out that providing insulin to all those who need it is far cheaper than emergency room visits, operations, amputations, so on and so forth. Yet, I've had people reach out to me who either are doing without their insulin, reducing the amount or using expired prescriptions or medication. That is unacceptable.

But the other part of it is we have, in the income support, let's take a look at the other prevention piece. Thirty dollars in a pay period for food to assist with the diabetic supplement – inadequate. It comes down to as well, Speaker, about making sure that there's adequate provision for healthy food for a healthy diet and hopefully to stave off the effects of diabetes. It's very clear here; let's make this accessible to everyone and put in place the finances to ensure people have the food they need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Many rural communities in the District of Bonavista with speed limits of 50 kilometres or less do not have driveways off the main road with 115-metre sightlines to meet the requirement for road access. Many of these properties have large amounts of land and new residents are unable to utilize existing or historical driveways/roadways. This regulation of 115-metre sightlines in existing rural communities is restrictive and detrimental to property sales and, thus, a hindrance to new property development.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to adjust its regulations within such rural communities to allow property development by granting road access to said properties.

We have a lot of things in rural Newfoundland that are working against people, developers. We find that we have a population that is dropping in rural Newfoundland. Here's a case of one regulation which is contributing to the drop in population in rural Newfoundland.

Early settlements in Newfoundland and Labrador were along the coastline. There were meandering roads that traversed the coastline in Newfoundland. Communities like Harcourt in Trinity Bay in my district, in Brooklyn, Bonavista Bay side, the same. In fact, of those two communities, I'm not sure if there are any more than a handful of driveways that currently exist that would meet the regulation of 115-metre sightlines both sides of the property.

So what happens? We've got residents in Newfoundland and Labrador whose families wish to come home, wish to sell properties in these communities and they're being denied access to the road. It is restrictive. It is an impediment. It affects rural Newfoundland greatly and I would say in the cases that we would have in most of the communities, in the District of Bonavista, they're straddled with land that they own, or they have purchased in time, that they cannot move or they cannot put a house on because they're not granted the access to move on.

What we would suggest relax that regulation in rural Newfoundland, and by relaxing it, we'll have a few more of the 90 or 100 that currently exist that don't meet the regulation but at least we could do something to alert those people who enter those communities that we have hidden driveways.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

E. LOVELESS: Just briefly responding to that, and the Member is right in terms of the challenges in rural parts of the province. He points out an issue that I'm willing to take a look at and I've already asked the staff that I'd like to sit down and have a discussion on that. It's not just my department, but it's also involves Crown Lands as well. Together we're willing to take a look at it and see if something can be done for many rural parts of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is for fairer electricity rates for Northern Labrador communities.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that fairer electricity rates be provided to residents in Northern Labrador communities.

The electricity rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are cost-prohibitive to using electric heat and are a barrier to adequately heating their homes. The rationale for this petition is to bring electricity rates more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake Melville region pay.

For the first 1,000-kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains residents are charged the same rate as the neighbouring residents of Lake Melville region. However, above the ceiling of 1,000-kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains residents pay six times the rate of Lake Melville residents. Six times the rate, jumping up to 19 cents a kilowatt-hour. This is the highest rate in the entire province, preventing most residents from being able to afford to heat their homes with electric heat. Low-income families and households that don't have the manpower to haul wood are the greatest impacted.

Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating expensive repairs: frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated houses also creates social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We strongly believe that changes to electricity rates need to be made for the northern residents of Torngat Mountains.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the life block to 3,500-kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy rate for electricity bills to Northern Labrador residents.

Now, Speaker, we live in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We look at Muskrat Falls, hopefully, will come online. That's going to serve a great thing for our province to help transition and lower the greenhouse gas emissions. We look at Upper Churchill Falls, a huge contributor to the province. These are major hydroelectric projects. But, in my communities, we can't access that hydroelectric power is really what it is.

When you look at how people in the North Coast heat their homes, they can't afford to lose electricity. The rest of the province now have concerns about their costs, but they don't pay anywhere near 19 cents a kilowatt-hour. If the rest of the province had to do that, I'm sure we would hear cries from the House of Assembly again talking about people being frozen out of their homes and the struggles. But when the cost of stove oil went up to $2.40 a litre, that really, really impacted the people in the North Coast.

So, Speaker, this petition is really important because people are struggling to heat their houses.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS affordable, reliable and safe child care is a necessary component of a functioning society, especially one that expects to reduce poverty, create employment, decrease out-migration and increase in-migration, all of which are essential for a growing economy; and

WHEREAS accessible child care is as much as vital and important for a growing economy and flourishing population;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the necessary action to ensure that accessible child care is just as much available as it is affordable.

Speaker, this is a major issue from the perspective of women who are the ones who unequally bare the brunt of this issue. We need to look at what can be done immediately; we need immediate government intervention.

We know that child care right now in inaccessible. We've all heard the sad stories and the desperate calls and pleas from families and women who are ready to return to work but cannot. They are either on their maternity leave or they cannot return to their workplace after years of being at home. Why not? Because they cannot get the child care spaces for their children.

I am hearing from my constituents in the District of Harbour Main who are desperate, who are devastated. They had plans to return to the workforce. We know that there are not only women in my district but across the province, there are hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorian women who recently had children but are unable to return to work at the end of a maternity leave. They cannot do it. There are just no child care spaces available.

We've heard about the grids and all of these other measures that are going to be in place, but what is that doing right now to support the women that, essentially, are not going to be able to return to work, that are not going to have an income? They're not going to be able to support their children in these times where we know how the cost of living is. It is going to impact them desperately.

These women need a solution today so they can return to work today. So what is the immediate plan of action? What is happening now? What is being proposed at this time for the hundreds of women who are now forced to, in 2023, make a choice between returning to work and staying at home?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy, Bill 33, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy, Bill 33, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Energy and Technology to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy,” carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy. (Bill 33)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Energy and Technology, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act, Bill 34, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act, Bill 34, and the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Energy and Technology to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act,” carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act. (Bill 34)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Given the House was unable to sit this past Friday, I'm asking for the consent of all Members to move a motion I gave notice of earlier in proceedings today.

SPEAKER: Is consent granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday.

SPEAKER: Thursday.

J. HOGAN: What did I say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Friday.

SPEAKER: We didn't sit Friday either.

J. HOGAN: Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are we giving consent to (inaudible)?

J. HOGAN: The notice of motion I read earlier today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but what is that?

SPEAKER: The motion is that we would sit late this evening.

Is consent granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't care; I'll sit here all night.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, March 21, 2023.

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.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, resolution respecting the granting of Interim Supply to His Majesty and related Bill 21.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into Committee of Supply?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are considering the related resolution and Bill 21, An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $2,974,162,700.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

It's a pleasure to stand in this hon. House and to represent the great people of St. John's West yet again. We have now spent – I guess this is day three on Interim Supply. Interim Supply is required to be passed in the House of Assembly so that we can continue ongoing operations of government from the period of April 1, 2023, until June 30, 2023, or until the budget of 2023 and associated main Supply bill is being introduced, debated and approved by the Legislature.

Now, everyone in this Legislature does know and I know the people of the province know that we will be introducing our budget on Thursday, March 23, a couple of short days away from now. So what we are asking the House of Assembly, this is normal procedure so that we can continue the operations of government, that we have an allocation made. This is not incremental to the budget, this is instead simultaneous with the budget, that this legislation pass the House of Assembly and receive Royal Assent. We need it by tomorrow, March 22, to ensure the seamless, ongoing, continuous operations of government. It's no interruption to government, no interruption to payroll, no interruption to the services, the health care, the schools, anything at all, so that we can have a seamless and continuous process and government in place while we debate the budget, which will be read – I think this is one of the earliest times ever – in March.

So March 23 is budget day. I look forward to standing in this House. This is my fourth budget standing in this House and bringing forward what this government's priorities are and how we intend to effectively manage the people's finances over the next year. The allocation for this Interim Supply is $2,974,162,700, and that represents about 37 per cent of 2022-2023, so last year's budget, which is normal process for this House. It's both a budget of current in capital account and gross expenditures.

I'm hopeful – I've listened intently to debate with I think everyone saying that they are supportive of this Interim Supply. It would be highly unusual that they would not be supportive on Interim Supply as it continues operations while we debate the budget. I've been listening intently to some of the requests for this budget, which is coming up on Thursday, and some of the key issues faced by all colleagues in this House with regard to their districts and the requirements of same.

So, Chair, I implore the House to continue this discussion and debate to ensure that Interim Supply is granted as quickly as possible so that we can seamlessly continue operations. As we get into what I'm going to call the depth and discussion around budget 2023-2024 because, of course, that's when the Opposition, the Members of government get the chance to go line by line through the budget. Comb through budget; ask important questions in budget as to everything that's being spent.

Again, Interim Supply is not incremental to the budget. It is included in budget '23-'24. I find it hard to believe that we're already talking about a budget that ends in 2024, Chair. How quickly time passes. But again, this is an important Interim Supply and I'd ask all my colleagues to pass this Interim Supply as quickly as possible so that we can move forward and ensure seamless operation of government.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

I want to take this opportunity, again, to thank the residents of the District of Stephenville - Port au Port who have sent me back to the House, the second time here, to speak on their behalf. Today, I will speak on a number of different topics that are all related to budget and the first one I'll start with is the issue around child care.

My hon. colleague, the critic for Education, from Conception Bay South, has spoken on this and asked several questions on this important issue for the last number of days. My colleague from Harbour Main District just presented a petition on this important issue. It's to the point where, I think, we on this side of the House have referred to it as a crisis. I truly believe that it is a crisis. The reason I say that is because of some of the information that was provided to me this past weekend.

I found out, this past weekend, that there are two specialists employed in the Western region who have not returned to work and they have stated to their employer that the reason they haven't returned to work is because of a lack of child care. Now, those are two specialists in the health care system. How many more health care professionals in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are out there now saying we cannot return to work because we don't have access to child care? So it has a significant impact on the delivery of health care in this province if we have health care professionals who are not able to return to work because they don't have access to child care.

Now, that is not a good situation for this province to be in and it is something that needs to be addressed immediately and it's something that has to be fixed immediately. Today, the government talked a lot about truth and some of the things that were happening in the daycare system. I'd also like to return the attention to some of the comments made by the Justice Minister when he talked about the idea that they're now suing their own Privacy Commissioner –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Excuse me; the report says that they're being sued to halt the Privacy Commissioner cyberattack investigation, citing bias. That was what was reported in the news. So that indicates that government has determined, in its own mind, that the Privacy Commissioner has a bias.

Are they afraid of what the Privacy Commissioner might find? Is that the reason why you would take a court action? I understand they talk about conflict of interest and they seem to be hiding behind that. I'd be more interested in finding out the facts and if the Privacy Commissioner can do that, then he ought to be able to do it.

But what's more important to me is, I think about a government suing its own Privacy Commissioner and I'm wondering how much is that going to cost. How much will that cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador for this to actually happen? Would not that money be better spent on providing services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Maybe a senior who needs some help paying their food bill, or filling their tank with oil. How much money are we going to go and spend to try and keep the Privacy Commissioner from doing an investigation? I don't think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will consider that to be a wise investment of money. We've often heard it's all about choices and that's what's happening here. It's a choice to take this action against the Privacy Commissioner.

And think about the secretness of that. Think about where this government is going when it comes to some of the things it's done in the past. I would argue that it's almost like we have the secret society of the Liberal government, and it's time for that to stop. This is the taxpayers' money. This is the House of Assembly. This is where we should have access to information.

We just found out again that another contract has been let with the Rothschild to do another report. We have a $5-million report that none of us are allowed to see, unless you're a Member of the secret society of the Liberal government. The rest of us have no reason, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are not allowed to know what's in it.

Will this second Rothschild report be the same thing? Are we to sit here and simply say, oh, good job, good job because we're not allowed to know what's in those reports. That to me is not good.

Some time ago, last year, as a matter of fact, on March 21, the government signed a contract, or the four health authorities on behalf of the government signed a contract with a company called Change Healthcare Canada. That contract was going to look at how we might change the scheduling system. It was an opportunity to look at finding savings in the health care system. The more savings the company found, the more money they made. They were paid $3 million at the beginning of this contract.

I ask Members or the government opposite how much money has been paid to this company to date called Change Healthcare Canada? What happened to that big announcement? What happened to that particular company and the direction that was going to be taken when it comes to scheduling? We have no idea on this side of the House what has happened to that particular contract. Again, $3 million to start, upwards of $35 million, potentially, to be paid out and we're sitting here today with no idea of how much money has been paid or will continue to be paid.

Last week, the Premier said, and he used the words: what is true. Well, I can tell you what is true. It's true that people of Newfoundland and Labrador are continuing to have to pay to see a primary health care provider, because in my district they pay $35 a visit and others they pay up to $65 a visit. What is true? We have long-term care beds closed. What is true? We have acute-care beds filled with long-term care patients because long-term care beds are closed. What is true? People are waiting months and years to see a specialist. What is true? The health care system under this government has deteriorated and it is in the worst shape it has been in the history of the province. That is true. That is true.

It cannot be simply blamed on the pandemic because the Nurses' Union and NAPE both argued prior to the pandemic back in 2015 that we needed a staffing review. They all put it forward. The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association told government that there would be a problem with the recruitment and retention of physicians, but the minister of the day paid no attention. As a result of that, we now find ourselves in a situation where we're playing catch up. That is the problem; that is the real problem here. We have not had any real direction going forward since 2015 and now we find ourselves having to find solutions.

While I applaud the current minister for some of the actions he has taken, they are going to create a problem because they are turning around and competing one section of the province against another; one town against another. This is what is happening right now.

In my district this weekend, a family physician said to me: Perhaps I'll go and move to Bonavista because I can get $200,000 if I go to Bonavista for two years. That's going to take a physician out of Stephenville. How does that solve the health care problem? It just moves the pieces around. So we have to come up with that plan.

My colleague, the critic for the Department of Health, has said on several occasions: Where's the plan? Today, I stand here and ask the same question: Where's the plan?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

It is always a great opportunity when you can get up here and speak. We're talking about Interim Supply. We know this is a part of the normal procedure just to ensure that there is continuity to the government's operations until we get to budget day. As the Minister of Finance noted, the budget will give an indication of what government's priorities are.

I do hope that government has been listening. We have brought solutions forward; we have brought recommendations forward; we have brought opinions forward. As the Opposition, we have done our best to ensure that the concerns of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are brought to this House.

So I do look forward to the budget; I commend the minister on her fourth budget. I don't know if it gets any easier but a lot of the applause goes to those behind the scenes, the staff that do a tremendous amount of work to prepare the documents and do all the number crunching to put together what we're going to hear on this coming Thursday.

I do want to, again, say a thank you to my residents out in Topsail - Paradise for putting their faith in me and I continue to bring their concerns forward.

In Topsail - Paradise, what a wonderful district. It's a relatively young district, lots of families, lots of professionals and also a very good seniors' population. Some of the concerns for my district, outside of the health care ones that I hear on a regular basis, but there are some key issues that we'd like to see or hope to see when the budget comes down. Some acknowledgement towards a high school for Paradise.

(Technical difficulties.)

P. DINN: I said something wrong. I got struck by lightning.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's coming.

P. DINN: Yes, that's going to happen.

Anyway, it sounded like thunder, but back to the schools. In my district, of course, a big ask is around a high school for the area. As I stated in the past, this was a promise back in 2015 when the previous PC government looked at an intermediate school as well as a review for a high school. Of course, we know the intermediate school was delayed a couple of years, but it is there and functioning. The review for a high school was indefinitely shelved. So, hopefully, we'll have some greater discussion on that and we'll see something in the budget that will look at a high school or a review for a high school in the district.

Roads have always been an issue. Route 60, and I know the minister, we've had a number of conversations on this. I know municipal staff and his staff are working on a solution around Route 60. It still doesn't address the craters that we approach on a regular basis. I do understand the weather certainly has an influence on that, but Route 60 through Topsail is a highly travelled road with lots of traffic. I walk it on a regular basis and I'm telling you it's a wonder I haven't been hit yet because there are sections on that road where walking is really taking your life in your hands.

Child care: with such a young community I have in or around my district there are multiple schools, K-to-5 schools. There are at least, I believe, four K to 5, one K to 4. There are two intermediate schools and a high school close by. So you can imagine the number of children in the community. As I noted earlier, I also have a very professional working population as well. Like my colleague mentioned earlier, we have individuals who, literally, can't go to work because they have to stay home. I don't say have to in that sense, but I mean, you're going to stay home to look after your children. But they don't have the choice. They don't have the choice to get proper child care or daycare for their children and be able to pursue their career and their professional development.

That affects mainly women. You do have some stay-at-home fathers who stay at home with their children, but it does mainly affect women. It's good to come in and offer $10-a-day daycare, but if there are no seats, it's not available or it's not accessible, then it really doesn't address the situation. In fact, many have told me that has made the situation worse because it has eliminated a lot of seats that individuals would normally have their children in. To think that parents, some before they're even pregnant, for a family who is expecting, are searching for child care and putting their name on a list where they could be accepted on a list. Not all can.

To put that in perspective, for a province that is dealing with population concerns, think about it. We could be increasing our population if we had the availability of the resources there and the facilities there. When a young family are deciding should I have one child, should I have two, based on the availability of child care, that's shameful to me. That's shameful for a province that is so desperate for an increase in population. Yes, you're going to bring in immigrants; we need them, no debate. They bring in their culture, they bring in their expertise and they bring in their families.

But our child care dilemma that we're in now really needs to be affixed to that. There has to be something done. You're not just balancing. You're looking at regulated child care, but then you also have unregulated. What are we doing across the board to ensure that there are child care seats available because all we're doing now is we're having less and less people in the workforce, pulling out.

I guess related to that – that is all across this province and it's no different in my district – is the cost of living. I gave an example in this House before where I walked into a local supermarket to pick up one of those single-serve salads for one of my daughters to take to work and it was mainly lettuce and, as I said, it was $8 or $9. It was amazing. So hopefully, through the budget, we're going to see some measures put in place either taking away taxes or adding some other incentives to allow people to be able to survive so they're not making those decisions between heat, food or medication. If you're offering these cost-of-living incentives, maybe you need to look at where it's going to be most effective then across the board for everyone. I'm hoping that we'll see some measures and initiatives put in there.

I know my time is running short, but I also mentioned about my great seniors population in Topsail - Paradise, very active population in Paradise, the 50-plus clubs. It is without a doubt heartbreaking when you think about families who either have their parent or grandparent in long-term care or home care, but then there are those who cannot find long-term care or home care for them. I know of many families dealing with elders who are suffering from dementia and you're struggling to find a place for them or you're struggling to have supports around to look after them. Much more needs to be done there as well.

When you look at balancing out, on one end, our youth, our children and that, we need work done there. We need government to stand up and make sure child care is available on that end; but then on the end-of-life end of the pendulum, we have to have similar concerns or to look after our seniors, to address them with dignity, respect and autonomy and have them live out their final years in a respectful manner, we need to start addressing that sooner than later as well.

I'll have more to say later.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further speakers to the bill?

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to stand again and have a few words on behalf of the concerns that are raised by the people of Humber - Bay of Islands, Mr. Chair.

I just want to bring up one small thing. I have to recognize the minister responsible for Housing on that funding announcement for Corner Brook for the emergency shelter. I know it was brought to your attention and you reviewed it quickly and got the money approved. I just want to recognize that, Minister. Thanks for doing that because it's great need and thanks for acting so swiftly on that to get that work done. It's much needed and thank you for your swift action on that for the people that's vulnerable in the Corner Brook area. I want to recognize that.

I'm going to speak today on the new family care announced for Newfoundland and Labrador: new Family Care Teams. Once again, I'm not saying anything about the ones that were given, absolutely not. As we said, health care is in a crisis, absolutely no doubt. Did you notice that based on a needs assessment, here's what was given out in Bonavista, Broomfield, Centreville, Clarenville, Conception Bay South, Deer Lake, White Bay, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Labrador West, Port aux Basques and St. John's, and none for Corner Brook? It's almost like, for some reason, Corner Brook feels that everything is good. It's not good. Then when you look at it, based on a needs assessment and available resources.

So I ask the government: Table the report, the needs assessment, why Corner Brook was left out and Bay of Islands. I look at the Member for Corner Brook, he's getting calls. The Member for St. George's - Humber, you tell me that there's no one in your district that would use this here without a family doctor? None for that area? As we look at it in this area, none from, say, Pasadena right out to Stephenville and in between that area where the Member is getting calls, and I know he's getting calls because they're calling our office also. Yet, we don't know what the needs assessment was and all I know is that it's being left out again.

The number of calls that we get – and I know the Member for Corner Brook is getting them, the Member for St. George's - Humber is getting the same calls where people can't get a family physician, can't get the prescriptions filled, cannot get their driver's licence renewed and here we are being left out again. So I just get to the point where okay, if I've got to raise the concerns on behalf of the Member for St. George's - Humber and the Member for Corner Brook, I'll do it. I'll definitely do it.

But I can tell you, there is some reason it's being left out. I don't know the reason why because once they say well, there's a needs assessment but we can't look at the needs assessment because, oh, that's confidential. That's confidential for some reason.

I can tell you a person – and I won't name the people. They gave a lot to the foundation in Corner Brook – a lot – and they were part of it a lot. His wife went to the emergency for 14 hours; do you know what happened? She left. Came back the next night and on the 14th hour the next day, they brought her in; 28 hours, brought her in right away. Do you know what they needed? Do you know what this person needed for his wife? They needed a referral to go up to a place in Ontario for cancer. That's what they needed – 28 hours they had to do it.

Here we are again putting out these Family Care Teams and none for that area. So people now phone this 811, 90 per cent even longer is going to say, well, b'y, if you feel like this, go on to emergency. Off they go to the emergency department and again, for whatever reason, the area out on the West Coast is left out again.

The minister may have great justification for that, I don't know, because once they use these words, the need, the assessment need, no one can ever evaluate if it's true, if it's not true. I know when the minister said the other said well, there are only 35,000 people without doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador. I question that. I honestly question that.

I make no bones about it, I question that, because I know the amount of calls that we get. I know the amount of people who are looking for it. I even just met people here today, here in St. John's, just in this building today, haven't got a doctor. Haven't got a doctor, yet they're saying, well, it's not as many as you think. Well, I think there are.

So I just wanted to bring that up, Mr. Chair, because once again it's something that's put out there and I'm not saying anything that they shouldn't be done in these areas. I'm definitely not criticizing it for being done in these areas, but I'm saying there's a need in Western Newfoundland for some kind of care because, right now, people haven't got the doctors. People are trying to use the nurse practitioners. Mr. Chair, with the nurse practitioners, people have to pay out of their own pocket.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to read a letter given to me by a nurse practitioner and, of course, people always read the letters from people, I'm going to read the letter. I'm going to read it in its entirety, the letter itself.

Given the current state of our health care system and the government having reached out to other parts of the world for help, can this government explain the 130,000-plus taxpayers of Newfoundland without a primary care provider, why they haven't reached out to the nurse practitioners of this province to open independent clinics if they so wish and have those nurse practitioners compensated using the publicly funded health care system as currently providers do?

Nurse practitioners are highly educated and subsequently highly skilled. They work independently, can prescribe medication, order and interpret tests and provide comprehensive, primary health care as proven in the hospitals and clinics under regional health care facilities.

There are private nurse practitioner clinics on this Island. However, the taxpayer who need to visit them has to pay out of pocket for their care, having already paid to help fund the system we already have. Why can't the nurse practitioners be compensated as current providers are so some of the 130,000 people who have no provider at present get the care needed at no extra cost to them?

If nurse practitioners are not utilized this way in other provinces, why can't Newfoundland be precedent setting, be innovative in this area and not just following the status quo? We can have publicly funded health care for all if nurse practitioners are utilized this way.

Health care is in a crisis. Overworked, booked to capacity, 130,000 Newfoundlanders without primary care; nurse practitioners are the answer.

Mr. Chair, here's my concern about the government, we're always talking about we've got to utilize all the workers to their potential. Here's an opportunity by nurse practitioners, and I know there are three in Corner Brook now, but the people that go, a lot of them are seniors, a lot of them are, a lot of them aren't, but they call the office and I know they're calling other Members from the West Coast also, and say: Why do we have to pay $60? Why have we got to pay $65? They walk in just to get a yearly prescription and they've got to pay $65. Just to walk in, here's a prescription, $65. They've got to get a letter to be able to continue on with their licence. They walk in. Get it done. They've got to pay for it. There's something wrong.

There has yet to be an explanation why we can't use the nurse practitioners to their capacity to help out people in Newfoundland. I just haven't got one yet – haven't got one. We can't say well, we can't because of MCP. All we've go to do, Mr. Chair, is hire those people, hire the nurse practitioners, even if it's through Western Health, and set them up in the office. We heard today the minister talking about retention, say, for offices, putting out $25,000. Do it for the nurse practitioner. See how quickly you'll get a nurse practitioner there. See how quickly you can get another 2,000 or 3,000 people with a doctor; get four or five like that.

So we'll do it for doctors which is fine. We'll do it for doctors, yet the nurse practitioners you could do the same thing. Set them up, hire them through Western Health and say now, let's go out now and try to help with the overload in the emergency department.

Mr. Chair, there are ways. The government's already saying, well, we're looking for new, innovative ways. This is something that's right on your desk; you just need the will to do it.

I see my time is getting short, Mr. Chair, and I thank you again for the opportunity.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Chair.

Interim Supply is here again I guess. Everybody's excited to see what's in the new budget. I'm sure there are going to be good things in the new budget. I'm sure there are going to be surprising things. I personally am hoping – and I'll go on record now – that there's going to be some operational money for the Lionel Kelland Hospice.

The Lionel Kelland Hospice has been funded so far somewhat by the provincial government, which we are very thankful for that. But the majority of the monies to open it and operate it will be coming from the community and the fine, fine fundraising team that we have for the Lionel Kelland Hospice right now.

I believe their quote is: Every moment matters. Which is something we can all take in life. As we near the end, everybody wants a dignified death. My heart right now is with my CA and her dad who is in hospital right now and possibly facing the end.

I've seen it throughout hospitals in Central Newfoundland and Labrador where people have died on gurneys, in hallways, zero respect, sat there, laid there for days. It's no way for a family to come together.

Fortunately, we have the first community hospice in Newfoundland and Labrador; it will be in Grand Falls-Windsor. We're still looking at a date of June for an opening. It will take pressure off the health care system that we currently have. It will be cheaper. The beds will be cheaper than housing somebody as they face the end of their life. Most importantly, it'll give the family a place to come to gather for closure to say goodbye to their loved one and, of course, it'll give the loved one the respect and dignity that they should have as they pass on.

I'm going to be asking questions about it after budget day, but I'm really hoping that there's something there for operational costs when it comes to the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor. It would be a shame to see this open and not being able to operate the way that it should. It serves so many people throughout Central. I'm sure it will serve people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm just hoping that we can make our first community hospice in Newfoundland and Labrador a successful one. Of course, it's going to take dollars to do it, but there's no reason why those dollars can't go to the Lionel Kelland Hospice this budget time, because it will be opening in June.

Something else that is very important to myself and my constituents and lots of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is something that myself and many of my colleagues have been asking about for quite some time now since I've been elected and that is a community benefits agreement. We see a community benefits agreement across the country, across many other provinces and it truly benefits the community when a new project comes in.

In Grand Falls-Windsor, Buchans, Millertown and Badger we now have Marathon Gold, which has a 13-year mine life. We're looking at probably up around three million ounces of gold. We are very fortunate to have Marathon Gold; they have been extremely generous before they even put a shovel in the ground. They even gave I think it was $250,000 to the Lionel Kelland Hospice for operational costs down the road.

As Marathon Gold comes in, as other companies come in, we're excited and we want them to succeed because when they succeed, we succeed as a province. But we should have a more established community benefits agreement that would lock in those jobs for the locals here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The community supports, I know many provinces across Canada whenever a big company comes in and does this, it is great for the community and you get to see a lot of spinoffs.

One of the biggest things that concerns myself would be the infrastructure. As these big companies come in to these smaller communities, it is well known, obviously, we need to get big equipment in there, lots of loads need to come in and out of these places and it does a number on the roads. It certainly does.

I am fortunate in my district right now; I have had the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway done in Grand Falls-Windsor, the west side and two or three substantial bridges in between there. The Buchans Highway right now and into Millertown and as they make their way down through for this mine, that road is really being tore up. It is certainly getting a kicking and there needs to be some responsibility for that. The people of these towns who use these roads every single day, their kids are on the roads and we have school buses on the roads, ambulances on those roads, we need to ensure that those roads are intact and there needs to be a responsibility for that. It can be a shared responsibility throughout communities, throughout government, through the companies that come in, that we are so fortunate to have. But until a community benefits agreement is concrete, intact, this is going to be ignored. It is.

There needs to be some sort of responsibility for the roads and the infrastructure as it gets a beating for these projects. It's not the town's fault. The town shouldn't have to worry about a road that have serviced them for 40 or 50 years that have done them well. But now, of course, circumstances have changed and I believe if we had a good community benefits agreement, it would be addressed and these towns could worry a lot less about potholes or the side of the road being tore up or sinkholes.

That's what's happening up on the Buchans Highway now, and I didn't see it in the Roads Plan for this year, but I would encourage the government to take a look at a community benefits agreement that would set in stone some sort of calculation where everybody can pitch in and ensure that the residents of these small towns can not only get jobs, but can maintain the infrastructure that they've maintained throughout the years. Whether they're an LSD, a town or community, they managed to maintain it with government and I believe that the roads and the infrastructure should be maintained as well and it can be done through a community benefits agreement.

I would urge government to keep working on that. It will be a living, breathing document. I would love to be a part of it. I've worked with many companies that have implemented community benefits agreements and, of course, the trade unions and Trades NL would be the same. So I would encourage government to please take a look at that as we move forward.

Agricultural land: I just had two neighbours basically in Badger who had their agricultural lots repossessed, I guess, by government. The reasons for this are multi-fold, but they were never asked why they didn't bear fruit or plant anything over the past two years since COVID. I know the government constantly talks about how COVID has affected things, day-to-day activities here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, it's affected everybody and that includes these two farmers in Badger who now have no land to farm on, even though they farmed on it for probably the past 40 years, they have a homestead there and now they're being told that everything needs to come off it, and that's just not fair. That's not fair at all. I mean my last calculation, we grow less than 8 per cent of the food in our province. That's not good enough. We need every little bit that we can.

So within these small communities like Badger if somebody plants a potato field and they're up to the market every Sunday selling their potatoes, their carrots, their vegetables or their livestock, then by God that's something that we need to get behind and cut out the red tape. Basically, these two gentlemen were just sent letters saying nothing has been growing there for the past two years; we're taking it back. Everything needs to be removed in 90 days. That's terrible.

These two gentlemen are older. They've been there for such a long time. They've grown stuff for 40 years. Well, the past two or three years, it's been rough on government; we understand that. It's been rough on the people of the province, too. So a little bit of leeway would be appreciated. Maybe a phone call to ask them why. I mean, one gentleman, his daughter has cancer, he had a heart attack and his wife had medical issues as well during the past two years with COVID and not one phone call to these gentlemen were made – not one. It was just a letter saying get your stuff off the land; we're taking it back. That's not fair. If we can use this land to grow stuff, absolutely, it should be done every single time.

Mr. Chair, I'll just leave off on mental health. My colleague said today that one in five people – I would guess that's even higher because that's one in five people that come out and say that they suffer from mental illness but lots of people suffer in silence. But, again, my office is open. I'm hoping that all 40 Members are in tune with anybody who might need mental health as well.

We have all the services, we have the connections and we can help you. So please, reach out to my district office in Grand Falls-Windsor. We will be there to help you and I hope that every Member is the same way. If you're mental health isn't good, you cannot get through day-to-day activities, it takes a toll on your family, it takes a toll on your community and we just have to do better.

So with that, I'll take my seat.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't planning on speaking to this issue I'm going to bring up because it was an issue that I thought we had solved some two years ago. That was after a number of years of me bringing this up as it relates to our budgetary process. It was two budgets ago, I believe, when the Minister of Finance was giving her speech and so on – the Budget Speech – and she said the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands is going to be very glad to hear that we've listened to what he was saying, we agree with him and we're going to put a process in place where we will be examining the books of agencies, boards and commissions. That was two years ago and I can get the Hansard. I don't have it with me now, but I could get the Hansard.

But after a number of years of lobbying for this and then we got the commitment it was going to happen and then nothing happens. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given the fact that we had a democratic reform committee that ended up getting dissolved right before we were about to do public consultations because we had an election. My first question when we came back to the new Legislature was about getting that Committee back up and running and the Premier committed that yeah, it's with the House Leader and he will be in touch to get that up and running. That was two years ago and we haven't heard nothing from him.

E. JOYCE: We're consistent.

P. LANE: We're consistent, if nothing else, on breaking promises, not owning up to commitments. That's why I just want to bring this up again.

This may be old to people who've heard me say this before, but I will say it again for the record, we go through a fairly extensive budgetary process in this House of Assembly each year, and so we should because it's the people's money we're talking about.

I know the Minister of Finance is nodding her head in agreement there now and she can't wait to hear what I'm saying about this. I'm glad to see she's being very attentive and hanging on to every word.

We go through this process, as we should, with the people's money, billions of dollars – billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. As we all know, perhaps the most important piece in these deliberations of this budget is what is known as the Estimates process. Of course, the Estimates process is where we get to do a line-by-line-by-line examination of each department's budget. Members on this side of the House get to ask questions of the minister and the minister's staff. He or she will bring their staff with them for the session and we get to ask questions about the line by lines. We will see variances between what's budgeted for this year, what was budgeted for the year before, what was spent the year before and what they're asking for this year.

We can ask questions around if you only needed this much money for consultants last year, this year you're asking for twice as much. Why? What are you planning on spending that money on? Or last year you spent X amount of money on travel, now you're planning on spending more on travel. Why? Are you going to more conferences? What are they? What's the benefit of going there to the taxpayer and so on?

It's a line by line. We do that with every department. It's a very, very important process. Like I say, it's probably the most important process because that's really where the Opposition gets the information, more so than listening to a budget speech. Because a budget speech is a lot of fluff and good announcements. It certainly doesn't detail on any of the negative things, just the positives. We're doing this and we're doing that and we're doing something else. So it's so important.

Now, when we do the budget – and this is something the public needs to understand and realize and I'm going to use the Department of Health, again. I've used it in the past. I'll use it again. I think it's a great example. We will do a line by line on the Minister's Office. There'll be a section there Minister's Office and we'll be questioning staff on why is the minister planning on spending more money on photocopying this year than last year or why did they only budget $5,000 for photocopying but he spent $7,000? He spent $2,000 – who did all the photocopying? What's that all about?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was an election year.

P. LANE: Yeah, it was an election year the Members says.

We will question that, but then there will be a line there in the Department of Health, as an example, of – I'm not sure what the amount is now. I'm just going to use it $3 billion, $2 billion, $2.5 billion transferred to the health authorities. That's it. One line: $2 billion to $3 billion transferred over to the health authorities and that's it. There are no questions about $3 billion. We just walk on past that one. We ask questions about photocopies, counting paper clips in the office and then we just transfer $3 billion over to the Department of Health. No questions on that one.

The same thing with the Department of Education. I'm not sure what it will look like this year with the folding of the board and all that kind of stuff but same thing transfer money over to the school boards. A lot of money going through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, Nalcor or Hydro, whatever. Just think about it, Memorial University, all the money flowing into Memorial University and CNA. We don't care about how much money they're spending photocopying over at MUN but we care about how much they spend over in the minister's office.

Just think about it for a second in terms of scrutiny of taxpayers' dollars. I'm not being critical of this government. It's the way it's always been. I'm not arguing that. It's the way it's always been. I'm just putting it out there to the public, putting it out there to Members of this House. Just think about what I'm saying for a second.

We value this process of the budget. We put in all this time. Members will be here when the budget starts doing Estimates in the nighttime and everything else, bringing in the staff. You're going to be here questioning. I've watched lots of Members over here, the Official Opposition and myself and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands and the NDP, we're here with our books and we're here with highlighters. We've got a staff person writing down numbers comparing it, trying to figure out where the dollars are being spent, asking a lot of probing questions and really you're doing it for about one-eight or one-fifth of the budget in terms of the actual dollars that were questioned.

The rest of it is all going to ABCs, going to health authorities, going to ambulance services, going to MUN, going to CNA, going to the school boards. All that money is going over here. We're not questioning any of it. We just know it just went over there. No process to question any of that. We're going to concentrate on what's happening in the minister's office, then we're going to say we did a great job questioning that budget, but we really didn't. We really didn't.

We might have done a good job getting a handle on what's happening here at the Confederation Building, but where the real money is, the real money, same public money that we're all responsible for, they're all over here in these big pots and these entities, nobody questioning a thing.

Now, you might argue that we've got boards of directors and all this kind of stuff set-up to manage those things, to manage ABCs. MUN got their Board of Regents and there are health care boards and there were school boards. There's a board for the Liquor Corporation all that, but none of those people – and it's nothing against anyone on those boards – were elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to take care of their finances and to make sure that their money was best spent, not one of them. These are all non-elected individuals who are not directly responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Forty people in this Chamber are the ones that are responsible.

So that's why I will say again, we need a process, which the minister committed that we were going to do and then we forgot all about it, where at least in every second or third – maybe every year – we bring in NLC and the health care board one year. We do a school. Well, we would have done a school board another year; bring in people from Nalcor another year, whatever, and start getting down to the brass tacks with their budgets in a public forum so everybody can see what's going on in these entities where all the money is truly being spent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always nice to get up here to represent the District of Exploits, especially during the Interim Supply because it gives us a chance to speak on a lot of issues in the district, of course. I do hear a lot of issues in the district. Of course, it's like anything; health care is probably the major issue in the district. I'm hearing cost of living is another big issue. Roads, of course, always comes up during conversations in the districts. Housing is becoming a big issue in the area. We have 300 people on the waiting list in Central Newfoundland for housing. That's an enormous list. That certainly needs to be addressed, needs to be brought down. I know there are some units probably need to be revamped, refurbished and that sort of stuff, but that is an amazing list in Central Newfoundland to have on the housing list for housing. So that has been a big concern.

Again, I'll just refer back to health care. Doctors have been leaving the health care system in Central Newfoundland; they're going elsewhere. Only this past weekend, I was talking to another constituent that said that they're losing their doctor. Not only are they losing their doctor, that leaves probably another couple of thousand people without a doctor. That's only this weekend that I heard that, so they're leaving.

I'm baffled with the long-term care situation in Central Newfoundland. We have two brand new units. We have 60 beds. We still have 25 beds that are left vacant. We've got people taking up acute-care beds and can't get surgeries done. We can't move them into long-term care which is taking up our acute-care beds in the hospitals. We have people that can't get surgery done because we can't get people into long-term care.

What I've been hearing is that it's staffing. I mean, the minister came in last March – March 28, actually, I got a news release here. The minister and Premier came into Central Newfoundland, March 28, cut the ribbon. A big announcement on two long-term care units, up and running. The minister said: “I am pleased to see the new, long-term care homes in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor ready to be opened and accept residents.”

Where we are, we still haven't got enough rooms in that facility. There are still residents waiting to go in that facility. If staffing is the issue, that bothers me as well. Last year, they opened up a Premier's office in Grand Falls-Windsor. They had no trouble to find staff – none. There were no competition numbers. There were no advertisements of the jobs, no postings, no résumé, but they had no trouble opening up a Premier's office. That office is probably $250,000 a year, but we can't get staff. What did we get out of that? Sure, we could get five LPNs out of that, $250,000, and we can't get our long-term care open.

That's a bit ridiculous. Our monies need to be used where it needs to be and right now long-term care is a big issue in the Central region. If there's $250,000 we could come to, to get those long-term care beds open, let's do it. I mean don't go wasting money where it don't need to be. We've already got seven elected Members in Central Newfoundland. We don't need an extra voice. The Premier figures we do, but we don't. We certainly don't.

So that's very disturbing to hear that long-term care – and certainly we're hearing stories of long-term care. The news this week has been atrocious, to be honest with you. I'm hearing right in my own District of Exploits of a lady – that's on the news. I've heard questions about it. We're getting questions about it. It's on the news now of the treatment of that lady was atrocious. The son has come out openly and said he's been told that it's staffing issues.

We have to correct this. We have to do better than this for our seniors. We have to do better than that for our residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, not wasting money where it's not supposed to be.

Now, of course, we're all told to stay tuned; there's some great news coming. I don't know. Where's the next Premier's office going to be open? I have no idea if that's the news we got because that is not news. That's only taking away monies from where we can actually use it. So we need to do better and we can do better and should do better on those options.

Also, Chair, I did mention housing. Cost of living, of course, is another big issue in the district. Gas and fuels alone are enormous. People trying to get to work, especially medium- to low-income earners, they find it very, very difficult to get to work and provide a satisfactory income for their families to be able to buy groceries, food, especially single moms, single parents and low-income families, of course, with children going to school, the cost of living is enormous. Some of that needs to be addressed so that families can have milk, healthy foods that they can eat and be alert when they go to school.

There are a lot of things in the district like that that I'm hearing, Mr. Chair. Every day, you stop in the gas station or the stores and people say, b'y, have you seen the price of this? Man, oh, man, have you looked at the price of meat today? It keeps going up and up and up and it never decreases.

Farmers, again, I talked to some farmers in the area and the cost of producing that food is becoming enormous for those fellas. The parts that they have to do get for their equipment, the fuels that they have to get to operate that equipment. To clear a piece of land right now to be able to grow foods is almost out of the farmers' reach because it costs too much to clear that field so that they can have more land.

Speaking of land, everybody got a problem with Crown land. We hear it every day; I have file after file after file. Of course the minister is here, he is taking it all in, so that is good that we know that the minister is paying big attention to Crown land issues. So I am hearing that day after day. My office is being flooded with calls because of the Crown land issues and something needs to be done to rectify the Crown land issues we have.

People want to sell their homes to try to get into personal care homes or smaller apartments, only to be told after 50 years that, b'y, I don't own my home. All that I have been working towards to get myself in a retirement position, to build up a life for myself, is not there. I don't own it; I don't have it. That is a very, very big concern to a lot of the elderly residents in the communities right now. I hear it in my district, so that is something that certainly has to be looked at.

We need to find a solution for that because this is becoming a very huge problem all across the province is people finding out that they don't own the land that they own. They've occupied it for years and they have kept it up for years. Certainly we got have to sit down there and talk about that situation and for the minister to do something about it.

I'll touch on roads in the district. I know that this year the Roads Plan came out and there is not a big lot in the Exploits District as of yet. We know down in the lower part of the district, 350, 351, 352, it is always dangerous areas down there. There are roads that are deplorable; we have a lot of potholes, a lot of holes, a lot of washouts and a lot of the sides of the roads being eroded. Right now, it doesn't seem much in the Roads Plan itself. So I'm hoping that this year, at least by June, a lot of the repairs will be done to those roads. I know last year I did have a lot of calls, a lot of emails from people with a lot of damage to their vehicles of tires, rims, even bumpers; high costs that was exorbitant to them. So I'm hoping to see a little bit more work done in that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand in this hon. House to represent the people of my district and, of course, to speak to Bill 21, Interim Supply. Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to stand here last week and speak to this bill and, as my colleague from Bonavista said, there's always someone watching when we don't think they're watching, but there's always someone watching. From my district, people reached out to me since I spoke last on Interim Supply and I said I would bring their concerns forward.

As we all know, Interim Supply is going to provide the government with $2.974 billion worth of money and, of course, this is going to ensure the funding for the continuance of operation for normal government operations.

Last year, in 2022, the Interim Supply was $2.75 billion and we're being asked this year in this Legislature to approve $2.974 billion, which, of course, is a significant increase. We can only hope that it will offset what was spoke about earlier, early tenders and funding for different departments. But I'm going to focus on a couple of departments this morning, as I said, since I've spoke last time. I'll go back to health care again.

Mr. Chair, it was alluded to earlier and one of my colleagues here in the Opposition said with respect to the cost of diabetic supplies. I spoke to three different families, different demographics, who are faced with the challenge of paying for their diabetic supplies for their family members. As was said earlier, we have people who are rationing insulin, we have people who are using outdated insulin, we have people who cannot afford to pay for the diabetic supplies and are, at times, being helped by a local pharmacy or a local individual who are paying for these supplies for certain people. In this age of 2023, it's hard to believe that we have families doing that.

I had an email and a phone call conversation with another gentleman from my district in Torbay who's waiting for surgery. He's waiting almost three years for surgery. He reached out to me to see if there was anything I could do to help him along or to give him some advice as to what to do. Mr. Chair, when we have an individual waiting three years for surgery, who is not part of the workforce, who is not being productive, it's a toll on him, it's a toll on not only his physical health but his mental health, his mental wellbeing and, of course, on his family's overall general wellness.

So when we look at the many issues that we have in health care, I do hope that the Minister of Health and, of course, the Minister of Finance, have a significant portion of this going back into health care to solve some of the problems.

One of the Members on the opposite side said earlier in debate when my colleague from Exploits was speaking that money is not an issue. Well, do you know what? That's great to hear, money is not an issue. I'm looking forward to great things from this budget, I really am, if money is not an issue, as a government minister just stated, well most or all of the concerns are going to be addressed in this coming budget.

I have numerous people in my district, Mr. Chair, without a family doctor, going to emergency rooms to try to get a prescription filled. As my colleague said earlier, 12 or 14 hours wait in an emergency room for a prescription being refilled. That's unacceptable.

Many seniors are reaching out looking for long-term placement, as again my colleague said earlier, with respect to the senior population and on the lengthy wait-list that we have, not only in my district, but right across the province. We have many seniors who are looking for an in at the various long-term care facilities.

Mr. Chair, when I look at all that we have to face and the decisions that are being made with respect to, of course, Interim Supply and we're leading up to the budget, I look forward to all of these concerns being addressed.

When I spoke last week, I spoke on Municipal Affairs and the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs knows the issues and concerns that are throughout the 275 or so incorporated municipalities and the many Local Service Districts, but when I spoke last week I heard from two, not from my district but from across the province, whose councils are struggling and grappling with finding solutions for health care in their municipalities.

A municipal mayor and councillor should not be responsible for providing health care for their towns. I know first-hand with respect to what we have to do, with respect to the monies that we get in municipal taxation and what we have to do with our budgets and how it's spent. I can assure you when I was mayor of Pouch Cove for 7½ years, we did not have the money to spend on health care. We did not have enough money to go around to pay all the bills. We had to prioritize what needed to be done like any other municipality has to do and do that. Now you have to put health care on top of it.

The problem is, Mr. Chair, we have some municipalities who are wealthier than others and have the ability, the financial ability to do or to make changes in their municipality with respect to health care to offer doctors and LPNs and nurses different incentives, such as free land or a tax break for a couple of years on their municipal taxes. Well, the majority of municipalities in this province don't have that ability.

What that's doing now is it's causing friction between mayors and councillors and staff from one community to the other because one town is doing it, another town wants their municipal leaders to try to do whatever they can to make sure that health care is in their municipality as well. That's unfair. That is unfair, Mr. Chair, because you're putting pressure, you're downloading onto the municipalities and they're unable to do it. Much like it was with the public libraries some years ago when that was put back on to the municipalities as well.

Mr. Chair, I want to touch on the costs of living and I want to touch on the costs of living with respect to how it is affecting people who are availing of food banks. That's a serious issue in my district. I'd like to give a shout-out to the Northeast Avalon Food Bank in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: They serve my district and the neighbouring District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island. The users of that facility are increasing. I've said it before in this hon. House, people who normally gave to the food bank, who donated to the food bank, are now availing of the food bank's service. I know it's not just in my district. We have 40 districts in this hon. House and I'm sure everyone is feeling it at some point in time. But I do know that the cost of living is affecting twofold. One, people's ability to give to the food bank; secondly, driving people to the food bank to avail of those services.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, it's concerning when an individual calls me or my constituency assistant calls the office to ask what the process is. This is the first time in my life that I've had to avail of a food bank. We cannot afford to live anymore. That hits home. I know it's not just me; it is a part of everyone's district in this year of 2023.

If money is not an issue, Mr. Chair, I look forward to the many concerns to be rectified in this budget. We're all looking forward to this budget coming up. As the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said, Bill 21 is for the seamless operations before we get into the depth and discussion – her words – for budget 2023.

Well, I'm looking forward to the depth and discussion in budget 2023. We have so much to worry about. We have so much to be concerned about. Our constituents are hurting from many different facets and, of course, we always hear about when they are hurting and they're looking for some help. So I do hope that this budget does provide the relief when it's coming down on Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lots of money.

J. WALL: Lots of money. Well, we'll see, Mr. Chair, how the money goes. We will see how this all goes and how it's all addressed and where government looks as to where it's going to go. I do hope and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has heard me many times with respect to the Roads Plan, what money is going into roads and what other announcements are coming forward because all that, again, affects the individuals, it affects the municipalities and affects constituents right across the province.

So, Mr. Chair, I do appreciate the time that I have to stand in this hon. House to represent my district, to bring their concerns forward and I'll continue to do so as we listen, as we help and as we try to make life better for all of our constituents going forward.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for your time and your attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

We're here to discuss about Interim Supply or the Supplementary Supply Act, 2022-2023 No. 2 which is Bill 25. Interim Supply is to pay the bills and to look after our front-line workers and all people that give of their time that need to be compensated to our government workers. In these times, I mean, we have a very aging province and something that I think that needs to really be addressed is, obviously, long-term care. In my district alone, the Burin Peninsula currently has an average age of 54. So we're not getting any younger, but any kind of degradation of services is not an economic driver to bring people toward us either.

We need to get our economy going, obviously, so we can get our people back to work and then we'll realize that these services are really needed and they are economic drivers to attract people to a certain area.

One of the biggest things for me, in my portfolio in looking after seniors and person with disabilities, is long-term care spaces. It's about looking after more spaces. It's about looking after the workers but, first and foremost, it's so important that we get it right, that we consider all things. Anything that we implement is going to impact the residents. So we want to make sure that the residents are thought of first and foremost when we look at that.

The biggest thing for long-term care, really, at this point, is the continuity of care because as we have people that are losing their primary care physicians and stuff like that, it doesn't give them an opportunity to have that continuity of care. There are too many gaps in between from one visit to the next. So that continuity of care is really important.

One of the biggest things that I have spoke with the minister on, and I think we're all in agreement that splitting up couples after 60, 65 years of marriage because one has more complicated medical issues than the other is really unfortunate. We really need to get that right and it's time to focus on that now. That can't be put down the road any farther. That needs to be taken care of as soon as possible because, to me, that is the most unfortunate thing that is happening currently in our province. These people need to be with each other, they want to look after each other and they want to know what kind of care each other are getting.

Like I said, if it means putting the person with the lesser medical needs into the long-term care facility that the person that has more complicated needs has to go, then we have to look at that and we have to make it happen because unfortunately we're not serving our seniors correctly at this point by splitting them up. I think that's very unfortunate. It's an egregious way of looking at it. These are the people that blazed the trail for us; therefore, that's the reason why I'm bringing it forward again, to say that they deserve better and we can do better.

We're looking forward in this budget about health care. Obviously, our health care is not where it needs to be. I kind of question now the way we're looking at things and having one health authority, I kind of question the fact of how is that going to look for rural health care such as my district. Because like I said before and I'll say it again, we have no physical hospital in the District of Placentia West - Bellevue. We have to rely on the G.B. Cross in Clarenville, the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre and the Newhook centre in Whitbourne. One health authority, is that going to ensure that the degradation of services stops in rural Newfoundland? I'm not sure. The jury is still out on that because it seems to be that the metro area seems to be getting bolstered but the rural areas are suffering because of that bolstering.

So I really hope that the government's impetus to change the category of a certain hospital is not to give them the ability to ignore the issues that are going on in rural Newfoundland. It's just not right. Like I said, I prefer to see that everybody is getting treated the same. It's the people of Newfoundland and Labrador's tax dollars that we are spending and therefore, to me, it's not about the choice of where you live or anything like that, it's about providing service to the people that deserve it most, and that's the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Especially the people of my district who all have to travel for health care services.

We're looking at getting a clinic and a new doctor in Arnold's Cove. That will be right in the middle of the district and that will help people along the way. There's a lot of economic upswing coming to the isthmus area and the Burin Peninsula and, therefore, we need to increase these services and help out our elderly as much as possible.

Just to switch gears a little bit, when we talk about Interim Supply, I spoke with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and I've been three years now – a little more than three years actually – talking to him about the bridge in Boat Harbour. The bridge in Boat Harbour is a very integral piece of infrastructure on Route 215. It's not a very big bridge; it's just a small bridge, but the thing is that underneath it's still done with creosote-soaked timbers.

Once we have a big rainfall, there's a bit of a sheen on the whole harbour. That's unfortunate because if there's no money in Transportation and Infrastructure, it might be the Department of Environment that looks at it to say that we can't let this go on any further, it needs to stop now and get this bridge replaced.

What we're doing, we're not looking at replacing the bridge; what we're trying to do is get a culvert put there because then there will be less impact for the area that it's in. If this bridge goes down, then there are three other communities other than Boat Harbour that are affected. Brookside is affected, Petite Forte affected and South East Bight is affected.

Now to say that those are affected with this bridge is unfortunate because if something happens to this bridge, they're completely cut off from the Burin Peninsula. They have to take alternate routes or figure out some other way of getting to the main part of the Burin Peninsula or the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador itself.

I mean, just to let people know the importance of this bridge, not only for communities and residents that are travelling back and forth to get groceries and doctors' appointments and all that kind of stuff, last year alone there was $9 million worth of crab brought in across that bridge. That's a lot of weight obviously, but the thing is that if that bridge goes down, what happens to that crab?

When we talk about these communities that will be disconnected, then it is a serious issue; nobody wants to be disconnected. We saw what happened with the Canning Bridge in Marystown. It's creating a whole different economy for the people in Marystown today. It's more expensive to do the things that you had done a month ago than it is to do today.

Like I said, to look at these bridges – and I understand the increase in the budget, I appreciate that, but the thing is this little bridge in 2020 was rated poor. I hope the minister can find it in his budget to have a look at replacing this bridge with a large culvert because then we can still have the runoff into the harbour if there is another catastrophic event like an Igor or a Hurricane Larry.

Talking about the same area and talking about Transportation and Infrastructure, currently in the province, the last thing that I saw reported was that there was a $2-million budget for brush cutting and ditching in the whole province. I would assure you today, Mr. Chair, that I can probably use $2 million right now in my own district and it still wouldn't clean up all the brush cutting and ditching that I need to do.

The unique thing about my district is that every community, except for when you drive into Marystown, is off a branch. We cover 5,503 square kilometres so if you talk about brush cutting, Route 1 is the Trans-Canada Highway and we get a lot of transfers from the federal government to look after brush cutting and ditching there, but when we go off these branches, it's a provincial issue. We need the province to realize that when we're asking and when we're advocating on behalf of our residents for brush cutting and ditching, then maybe it should be a bit of a consultation as to what areas we're looking at.

I was lucky enough this year to secure $149,000 of a $2-million budget. When you look at 40 districts in the province, yeah, I feel proud that I batted above our weight and we were able to secure that much, but it went to the wrong area. It actually took down a natural snow fence down past the Terrenceville branch that was actually keeping the snow from being on the road. A lot of people can probably remember from years ago, the big diggers that were in trying to clear up this area just to get one lane through.

Like I said, maybe some consultation because down in the towns of Terrenceville and Petite Forte that I fought for the last three years, still hasn't been done. This affects the people in Boat Harbour, South East Bight and Petite Forte as well. I look forward to talking about this again.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to bring up an issue here again on behalf of the residents of the Bay of Islands that asked me to bring it up: Lark Harbour. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs was dealing with this. It was severe flooding in the lower part of Lark Harbour. They had floods again there when the tides rose to an exceptional level there about a month ago, a couple of months ago, actually. A lot of the residents got flooded out again along the beach.

We all know the winds are higher, the tides are higher and when they're on the lower part of the road they get flooded out. One house a few years back got blown over, actually blown over. The fire department themselves had to go in and they found them in the basement, these people.

I wrote the minister about relocation, about those people being relocated. The minister wrote back and said, no, it has to go under the relocation policy, which is 75 per cent and it would be a cost benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I remind the minister – and I'll do it now publicly on behalf of those five residents – and it was in 2017, I think, that Mud Lake had big floods. Mud Lake had big floods. I was there. It was devastating for a lot of people, very devastating. A lot of them had a hard time of it and lot of them went through and lost a lot and a lot of them got some compensation towards it. But they couldn't get relocated because the relocation policy didn't allow it unless it was 75 per cent. Well, they changed it to 75 per cent since then, but a certain number, up to 90 per cent, I think, had to agree to it and it had to be a cost benefit to the government itself. That was the policy put in place and that's why it couldn't be done at the time and offered.

Fine, everybody understood that. Some people wanted to move, a few people did, some refused to move, which is fine again. There was never, ever a vote.

What happened when the Member for Lake Melville went and left as an independent and he went over with the Liberals. I just want to read a quote that he made in CBC news. He left as an independent, went for the Liberals: “… as well as offering compensation for resettlement for Mud Lake residents, as reasons for his return.”

Now, Mr. Chair, that is troubling to me. That is troubling for me, personally. Not because of the Mud Lake residents, if some of them wanted to move and the policy was in place, I have no problem with that. I know the devastating. I know the fright of some of them. I know there was water quality monitoring put in place that came out later. I know all that. A lot of steps were put in place. Some still had anxiety; I understand that. I have no problem with it if you're going to do that, absolutely none.

My problem is that if you're going to break the policy to take a Member from an independent to put him as a Liberal, you have to exercise that policy for other people who has been flooded three and four times and every time the water goes high, they experience the same type of anxiety. You cannot just take that policy and say we want that Member because we may need him later on down the road, we may need an extra person because someone may put out some text messages and have a minister have to be removed because of a police investigation. So we need a bit of insurance.

So here it is, the Member for Lake Melville's own words. That's what got him to go over when they offered him. So I ask the question to the minister: Who offered it? Who offered that to break the policy of the Newfoundland and Labrador resettlement to get a Member to leave here as an Opposition, go back as a Liberal, but you won't give it to the people in Lark Harbour who got flooded out at least four times?

That's wrong. This is public funds. This is nothing about the residents of Mud Lake. This is about consistency.

So the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote back and said no, no, no, it has to go through the community council, has to go through the regular policy. But, okay, I'll cross over today, give the residents, the five people, I'll cross over. If that's what it takes I'll cross over today, buy me off, come on.

P. LANE: Lisa said she don't want you.

E. JOYCE: She probably don't want me. No, I don't suppose she does. Once I starts, she won't want me, I guarantee you that. She better just not go pushing my buttons too much, I'll say that to the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, don't push my buttons too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: No, I'm just talking about this here, Mud Lake.

CHAIR: Order, please!

E. JOYCE: You want to buy me out?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Member to direct his comments towards the Chair.

Thank you.

E. JOYCE: Okay, can you ask her to stop heckling and saying is this a threat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE: I'm saying to you right here right now, that if you're part of a government that's going to turn around and then offer compensation to one group of people but not to the other group, it's wrong. It's wrong.

P. LANE: Sounds like an abuse of power.

E. JOYCE: It's pretty close to abuse of power, pretty close, pretty close to abuse of power.

Mr. Chair, I've told the people from Lark Harbour that I would bring this up. I would raise this issue. Mr. Chair, I'm raising this issue with government now. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to stand up in her place and say who offered that funding. Who did it come from? Was it you? Was it the Premier? Who offered it?

Here's the Member for Lake Melville's own words, after they offered it – I'll read it again: As well as offering compensation for resettlement in Mud Lake residents as reason to return to the Liberals. That's what's there. Not my words.

So I'll say to the minister, when you take a policy and you put a policy in place, you should make sure it's for all the residents across Newfoundland and Labrador. If you want to take and pick and choose because you need someone to cross the floor, it's wrong – it's wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll have to do a review on that.

E. JOYCE: Have to do a review on that.

So I'll just say to the government itself that those four or five residents that are experiencing flooding, they have the same anxiety as the people in Mud Lake. It was severe in Mud Lake; I was there personally. I was there and I helped them out later. I understand all that. But the people who are in that same area, they have the same anxiety. One now got their basement shut down – two of them, actually, got it shut down. They boarded it up and made sure no water can get in. They know it's coming again. They took everything up, they got everything boarded up and all they got is concrete there.

P. LANE: How do they get help?

E. JOYCE: How do they get help?

So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to sit down and take my seat now, but I told those residents that I will bring that up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: I hear the one minister over there clapping because I'm sitting down. I can tell you one thing and I'll say it to them all, if I got a concern from anybody from the Humber - Bay of Islands, I'll bring it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: I'll guarantee you that. I don't care who wants to go over there and mock me for saying oh, you're going to sit down. Well, Mr. Chair, I guarantee you, I brought up the concerns and I ask everybody to be treated equal in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask that if the government are going to offer people incentives to cross over to the Liberals, it's wrong. If government are going to offer those incentives for people to take care of residents in Mud Lake, which I have no problem with being done, absolutely none, but you should step in for the same policy for the people that are being affected by flooding who can't go through the normal policy as Mud Lake because they never had a majority of people who wanted to leave and they didn't meet any threshold whatsoever of the amount of funds, how it's going to be a cost-benefit analysis to the province.

That was the policy and once the minister changed the policy and then changed the policy back again, that people can't use it, there's the problem. I ask the question once more: Who offered the money? Who offered it? I ask the minister because it was your department. Was it you? Was it someone else? Was it Cabinet? Who offered the money? Because this is not right to the rest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it's not right to the people that I represent, the people of Humber - Bay of Islands, who is going through flooding, who have anxiety, who knows, when there's water coming up next for a high tide, they're going to be flooded out again. They just want to be treated the same as everybody else in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government have the moral obligation to treat everybody equal in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll say to the residents of Lark Harbour, when I come out, I'll give you this Hansard to let them know that I brought their concerns up in the House of Assembly and I will not stop until government treats all people in this province the same. This resettlement program is a prime example how they pick and choose the policy of what they want.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and represent the people of my district in the District of Ferryland. First of all I want to start on – I don't know where to start, to be truthful. I have no idea where to start, but I'll start on doctors. We've been battling this now for a year and a half. We have some issues up there. They had two doctors there at one point. One had left and then another position came up in the district and it started off that they didn't even offer the job to start. So she was a doctor there. They could have offered her the job. No, so she had to call on it. She did that and, just through the jigs and the reels, it's just been unbelievable the treatment that we got in the district from government on this.

I spoke to the minister I am going to say last Friday night, and what came up was, well, she can go there if it's a fee for service, if she wants to do that. Well, that's not what she wanted. She was looking for a rural retention bonus. That's what it started out as and they could have done it and moved the doctor there in a rural area. I told him last year and mentioned to the Premier you could take all the glory you like, take the story and you put a doctor in a rural area, but you wouldn't do it. No, for complications – I have no idea why. I spoke here two or three times, last year, saying that I think we can get it done. Being positive – I thought we could get it done. It has still not happened.

They were saying fee for service. That was the last shove off. Now, that came up last week. That never came up all last year, fee for service, because it's something going on internally with Eastern Health and government that they can't fill this position, and it is not correct to not have it filled in the district.

I had people going to the clinic last week to get an appointment, nine days. Someone else got 21 days. The nurse practitioner is there two days a week and in Trepassey two days a week. The doctor used to fill in two days a week up there as well while the nurse practitioner was there. That's what she's looking to do in Trepassey and then go to Ferryland as well and cover the good part of the district. But no, that can't happen. They won't do it.

For the life of me, speaking to the doctor, speaking to the people in the area, Eastern Health, we met with the minister and he doesn't get into negotiations. He doesn't get involved in negotiations, but you can travel over to Europe and get involved in negotiations to get doctors here, but you can't do it here in rural Newfoundland. It's incredible. We can't get that doctor in the area.

There's a problem somewhere there between these two groups that they can't get this done. They'll say well, they're requesting too much or are asking too much. Get to the bottom of the problem and solve it and get the doctor back in the district. That's the issue in my district and has been going on for a year and a half.

Then you turn that to an ambulance that started last year in Trepassey. You try not to get wrapped up in this and try not to get too emotional, but I tell you it's some hard not to because all you do is get emails after emails. This is one: The system is broken. We're sick and tired of all the reports and studies and lack of action. Well, no doubt. You didn't need Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: My spouse and I are among the numerous influx of new residents, and we, like many others in their 40s and 50s, the ambulance issue has us seriously reconsidering our residency in this area. The idea of an auto accident or health crisis resulting in over an hour's response is horrifying. It's absurd considering an ambulance sits in the district not being staffed and we don't seem to want to do something about that. The government is responsible for making them staff the ambulance. That's the issue we have.

Had a call this weekend up in the arena, a young girl fell into the boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: My granddaughter.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Your granddaughter?

Now, fell into the boards and she was on the ice for one hour waiting for an ambulance – one hour. I wasn't there at the day, but I had somebody message me: An ambulance with an issue in the arena. Now we're close to St. John's. We're a half hour from St. John's, but it's an hour – it's another 45 minutes back to St. John's from Mobile, or 40 at least. We know that.

So waiting on the ice for one hour for an ambulance to show up is terrible. It's terrible. So that's Mobile. That's the first part of this district in regard to the ambulance service from Cape Broyle. That has to come from Holyrood or Cape Broyle. We had choices, but we don't have a choice coming from Cape Broyle. It's not there.

There's another lady had said that if you're mother was 65 years old and with health issues of her own, would you expect her to do CPR on a man for an hour and 20 minutes while waiting for an ambulance? I can read the whole email; I'm not going to do it. There's not too much stuff in it, but it's something I'd say there that's probably not proper to say here. For an hour and 20 minutes performing CPR on somebody that lived next door to you. That is not proper. That's not right. That's not good enough by this government. That is not good enough with an ambulance that's sitting 15 minutes away at the most, from that person that emailed, at the very most.

They took it last year out of Trepassey. The big word last year was dynamic dispatching. That's what they were going to have when they took the ambulance out. That's from the previous minister that was there, dynamic dispatching. Now it's called rapid response or I don't know what it's called. That plan came out on a Friday night. That's the issue that I'm getting at here is planning. It was doctors; now it's fee for service. When did that come into the equation? That's a plan we got.

Now you're going to give out money to doctors down in Bonavista and every other health care clinic. What you're doing is pitting all the communities against each other, is what we're at. Don't say it's not going to happen because everybody is saying it, every district is saying it. Well, why can't I get a doctor for $200,000? Now that's the plan we've got. Now it's a great initiative, there's no question. But that's not a plan.

Now you're going to pit that doctor that's over in Stephenville - Port au Port somewhere, they're going to go to Bonavista now and they're going to get $200,000. How is that going to help? Someone else got to go to Stephenville - Port au Port. All they're going to do is change areas and now they get $200,000? Is that the idea? Because there's no thought put into it, or there might be a lot of thought, I shouldn't say that because you're trying, I give you that. I give you that; you're trying. But the plan is not working. I give that you're trying.

You put a rapid response team or a rapid – I can't even remember what it's called now, I'm that frustrated with this stuff – they're putting a rapid response team up there with an ACP on it. Well that should be there with the other ambulance that should be staffed there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: That's what should be there to take care of a person. She can be roving in the area, drop in and take care of that person and triage them until an ambulance gets there, whether it's in Cape Broyle or Holyrood. But it should be there besides that. Instead, we'll take one out of Trepassey and move it to Cape Broyle. There should be two in Cape Broyle. Now there's one in Cape Broyle and it's not being staffed. Then they're going to tell you why they did it: lack of calls.

It's not about calls. I went through it last year in the petition. I'm after going through it, I don't know how many times. It's about geography. They're up in the country. You go up in the country when it's winter, when it's snowing and when it's blowing, it's not fit to be on the road, not fit. But the ambulance drivers up there, they lived in there for years and they know the area.

So you take the ambulance and move it down to Cape Broyle. Now when an ambulance gets called, they're two hours away. They're in red alert. I'd say they're in red alert everyday and they're probably answering calls from further down the shore. It depends on who's going to dispatch them and where. But it's not acceptable. It's the geography.

There are seniors in the district. Someone called today in the Trepassey area that's been living there 60 years. So today she doesn't have a family doctor. She called, can't get an appointment, there's no family doctor. We know there's no doctor there. Go to see the nurse practitioner. Because she hasn't been there in two years, she hasn't been sick; she's no longer a patient there. Now there's something wrong with that. I have to get into it a little more, but to get that call is not acceptable – totally not acceptable.

I could stand here all day and talk about stories, stories upon stories and emails coming in on the ambulance issue.

Another gentleman was driving down from Fermeuse, got as far as Calvert and had a heart attack, had to go back to Ferryland to the clinic where the people in the clinic took care of him for an hour and 40 minutes. It ended up with a bad result. I feel sorry and certainly pass on my condolences to the family, but an hour and 40 minutes waiting for an ambulance in Ferryland.

To hear the story that the lady wrote in an email of driving the car and looking back at him: What am I going to do? He said keep going. It's just horrifying to read.

That's only one. It's going to happen again. It is definitely going to happen again. It could have happen the weekend at the arena. I mean, it's just unbelievable that it could happen.

That stuff is going to happen, we can't stop that, but if we got an ambulance in the area, we got a chance to make it. If it's not there, we have a less chance of making it.

If it's there, it still happens. We've had lots of people in our area that had a heart attack or something happened, an ambulance goes and they don't make it, but we have a chance if the ambulance is there. When it's not there, we have less of a chance. That's what we're trying to get at. That is what we need back in our area is an ambulance, back and staffed in our area.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure to get up again to speak. This is my second time now on Interim Supply as we lead into the upcoming budget on Thursday. It's, I guess, our last opportunity to speak on this end of it before we reconvene in two weeks' time, so it's important.

As I hear my colleagues speak, and you listen to all sides, it's pretty amazing this day and age what we're listening to ambulances and ER closures. These are pretty basic things in 2023, but then it's always led by the backdrop of we're doing good. Things are great. We have a surplus. We can weather this. Everything is wonderful.

I'm okay; I'm a cup half-full type of person too. I'd rather think positive. I think it's great to be positive, but I have to wonder sometimes when I flick on the news and I hear this commentary, and I hear it in the House here, what province are they living in? As much as I would love nothing better than to be all of these roses and cherries and everything being wonderful, that's not what we're seeing. That's not what we hear.

I just listened to my colleague from Ferryland. He's very frustrated over one service, an ambulance service. That has to be one of the most basic things in life, to get you – and that's not saving your life. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they won't. That's getting you somewhere where they can save your life. We're talking about 45 minutes to an hour to an hour and a half and he's fighting daily. I hear it in our caucus room, in this House, on the media. He's fighting for his district. That's what he's elected to do and I commend him for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: But why we have to do this time and time again. I've said it before, I was out on the steps of the Confederation Building last week and we had a crowd from Whitbourne. They want their ER open. They've got urgent care out there. They're not satisfied. They want 24-hour emergency care. Is that, that much to ask? I don't think it is. The building is out there. The Newhook building is out there. Let's staff it.

We have HR problems. Fair enough. We're opening all these family teams that used to be the collaborative care. They've go the name changed into Family Care Teams, I guess. We're setting up all them throughout the province. We have to find staff for them. We can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, but there's a recruitment effort on the go. Fair enough. Put a couple of doctors out in Whitbourne. Staff that if you want to look at initiatives. You can't be just running around putting on Band-Aids. And that's what I see sometimes. When I hear the Premier and the ministers across the way always say things are good. We've changed. Things improved drastically. Fair enough. But we're far, far, far from out of the woods.

Listening to that is cold comfort to those people still struggling. The protestors daily on the step. We were surprised today when we came in that there wasn't another group out there. I guess we'll find out. It might be next week they'll be here.

But that's not good enough. You know, we'll play politics and we can be accused of doing the to and fro in this House. Fair enough. We're not playing politics. We're just speaking for people. My colleague, once again, he's reading the emails. He didn't write the emails. The emails were wrote to him.

I stand in this House now in my role as shadow minister for Education and early childhood development, I'm asking questions of the minister responsible based on meetings and conversations and pleas we've gotten from the industry, not only my district, right across all of our districts.

So I'll stand here in my place and I'll say to the minister what he's saying was not factual. You're called out then if you say the wrong word because then you play semantics with your words. You're not allowed to use this word in the House; you're not allowed to use that word in the House.

Then I read The Telegram this weekend and it was pretty clear what The Telegram wrote. It was a lot stronger words than I used. But then I find the minister stands in his place today – and he's not talking to me, he's talking to the people in the province when you do this stuff. He stands in your place today and he's telling me all my information is incorrect. The person I'm talking to, which is not the person I'm talking to, refutes everything. I don't know who that person is. I know the people I'm talking to. I trust their information.

But here we get this case of smoke and mirrors again. You're not dealing with the issue. You're not answering any of the questions that matter to people. You're playing semantics. Semantics will not solve any of our problems. Semantics will not create those extra thousands of child care spaces we need. Semantics will not fix the early childhood educator wage grid problem. Semantics will not fix the ambulance issue up in Ferryland. Semantics will not fix the health care problem we have right through the province: Whitbourne, Bonavista, it will not fix it.

I spoke last week about Conception Bay South. We have nothing. I saw 10 Family Care Teams announced today or collaborative care clinics announced. CBS was nowhere to be found. I'll say it again and I'm going to continue to say it, we have 28,000 people in Conception Bay South – 28,000. An urgent care centre for the St. John's metro region but they carved off CBS. We're not part of metro. We're only part of metro when it suits them. That's not good enough.

I'll repeat: that's not fair to the people of Conception Bay South. I know they're not all Tory areas they're putting these collaborative care clinics but, again, how can you ignore Conception Bay South? How can you ignore the largest pocket of people outside the City of St. John's? How could we be deemed as second-class citizens? Are we not worthy of that? It really irritates me, it really frustrates me and it should frustrate everyone in my district. I'll make sure people in my district are well aware of what's happening. This government are turning their back on the people of CBS. It infuriates me when I read these listings today.

I talk to the minister regularly and I don't agree – we'll agree to disagree – that we should be pushed off to another time. We're living here now and people in CBS, when you're talking red alerts, Conception Bay South are without an ambulance many days too – many days. They're on red alert constantly. Just think about that, 28,000 people are in red alert constantly. Where are you going take them to? The same thing, you're looking at 40 minutes. Parts of my district – and my colleague for Harbour Main, a part of her district up further – it's longer than 30, 40 minutes. That's the reality you're dealing with.

Is that fair to those people? I don't think so. But then, when I turn on the news we're doing great. Things are turned. The province has turned. We've turned a corner. Things are wonderful. They're all over the world. They're ringing bells here. They're in New York, they're in Nova Scotia and they're in Ottawa. They're in Poland – a photo op in Poland.

Now I'm telling you, the amount of money this government needs to invest in film alone, and I'm talking old-fashioned camera film – there's probably money in it. It's a good thing we have electronics now because it's one snap after another. If we used the old-fashioned flashbulbs, they'd all have to wear sunglasses, because all you'd see are flashbulbs flying everywhere. That's all I see. It's photos everywhere. You're down in Poland, there's a photo; you're down in New York, there's a photo. There are photos everywhere.

People who are home in Newfoundland, where we're to on the ground, are crying for an ambulance. They're crying for an emergency room. But then in the backdrop, things are great, we're doing wonderful. They're going all over the world to praise up; we're doing great.

Again, it's an alternate universe. It's not in the universe I'm living in and most of my colleagues here, we don't live in that universe. But for some reason Members on the other side – now maybe not all, a lot of Members on the other side live in that universe.

Mr. Chair, it is something I brought up last year and I'm expecting that I'm going to probably get ahead of myself on it. So the budget is coming on Thursday. I know last year's budget and the last couple, if I am not mistaken, weren't probably as good as what I am expecting this budget will probably be, because all I hear is everything is good, so we're expecting this. There is an announcement every day. Every day we have another announcement coming, one after another, after another.

In government acronyms, I think that next week we're going to see the LOP again, the Liberal outreach program, L-O-P for short. I'm expecting I'll see red jackets on all the streets going around knocking on the doors with a brochure in their hand, jamming it in people's doors, the good news budget. It is called the LOP; it's an outreach program to get the message out. Now, ironically, this year they may have some good news to share. But if you come up to CBS, if you come up to Ferryland, if you come up to a lot of districts – Harbour Main and I'll go right across – I don't know if they're going to get the right response.

They must do a bit of screening ahead of time. They're not knocking on the right doors because the doors I've talked to and the people I speak to don't want to see no Liberal outreach program. But you get these pictures – we'll see them next week. Mark it down, we'll see groups on the streets with the brochures and the selfies and everyone is happy. They're going to be in certain picked areas. I figure they must be going to see family members because they're not the people I'm talking to.

It's insulting – and I say that in all sincerity; I'm not being facetious – the people; it insults the electorate of this province. They don't believe this nonsense, but this crowd opposite got a great way of trying to – and I like to refer to this; the Premier does a great job of it. It is like psychological, lull you into thinking everything is fine, because everything goes bad and then you get a good announcement.

When it goes bad there is a good announcement. It is amazing how you could chart that along a piece of paper. It's a good announcement. Following everything that goes bad, they come out with a good announcement. Lately, you can't keep up with the announcements. They can't even remember what they're announcing.

I'm sure they're going to forget one of these days and announce something wrong. I hope they announce a Family Care Team for CBS. Then they won't be able to pull it back. That's my hope anyway.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad to have another opportunity to speak.

I have a laundry list of issues so I don't know where to start. Thank God we have all night to get through my list. I appreciate the minister there is so anxious to hear what I have to say.

One issue I just want to bring up, first of all, is that school bus incident that happened in Mount Pearl in my district. The bus was coming from Newtown Elementary and it happened on Munden Drive. I just want to say for the benefit of the minister – I'm sure she would anticipate this anyway – there are a number of concerned parents. A couple of them have reached out to me, certainly, over that incident.

I do understand the minister saying that buses are inspected the summer before school starts. This bus, I guess, would have been part of that. I think she indicated in QP that it was also inspected in September by a government-certified inspection process.

I guess we'll wait and see what the investigation yields. I understand it's being investigated by the RNC and by her department – and I am not a mechanic and I'm not mechanically inclined either. But it just seems odd to me that if a bus was inspected in just January month, and now just a couple of months later the whole bottom drops out of her, something doesn't feel right to me. A couple of parents have reached out to me and we discussed it. That's how they feel as well, that inspected or not inspected is different than – brakes can go on something, things can happen, but for the whole axle or whatever it is to just drop right out of that bus, if it was inspected one would have to question the quality of that inspection. Was it inspected properly and so on?

I know we've had incidents in the past. I believe we had charges laid, I read in the paper not that long ago, against some individuals for not doing proper inspections and so on. So I'm not going to prejudge what's going to come out of this investigation by the RNC and by the department, but it is very concerning that a bus could be inspected in January and then, two months later, to have a serious incident like this.

Certainly, when it comes to the safety of our children – which the minister says is paramount and, obviously, it should be paramount; I would agree with her on that wholeheartedly – then we need to get to the bottom of this. If there's something not being done properly, and if the system needs to be tweaked or improved for better inspection processes to make sure things are being done properly, then whatever we need to do we need to do, but this is not a nice to do one. When it comes to the safety of our kids, that has to be a top priority.

So I look forward to hearing the outcome of that investigation, but not to be unexpected. I would say to the minister, parents who have reached out to me from that school, parents with kids who are on that bus are very, very concerned and very interested to see what comes out of this investigation. I hope that those matters are going to be made public and certainly brought to the attention of the parents involved as to the follow-up on this accident.

Another item – which also goes right to the same minister, actually. I had the pleasure of last weekend – not this weekend past, the one before – of attending the Special Olympics Winter Games out in Grand Falls-Windsor.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was good to see you there.

P. LANE: Yes, and a number of my colleagues were there. My colleague from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for sure, and, of course, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor and the Member for Exploits was there and Conception Bay South. There was a number of Members there.

I'm sure everybody would agree, that attended, it was great games. I always say whenever I go to anything related to Special Olympics, whether it be Mount Pearl Special Olympics or just Special Olympics in general on the provincial stage or whatever, I always leave feeling a lot better than when I went there. It always puts a smile on your face. It's always very inspiring to see those athletes and how they take so much joy in just participating and to cheer each other on and it's a wonderful experience. Anyone who hasn't gone to a Special Olympics event, I certainly encourage you to do so.

One of the things that came up there that was brought to my attention – actually, I noticed it myself before it got brought to my attention, but it did get brought to my attention by a couple of people – and that was they had an event there that was bowling and the issue of accessibility and this 1981 rule. I know it's an issue – I've been told – that the Member has been lobbying on and so on as well.

But to have an event like the Special Olympics or any event, even if there was an event just for the general public, to be able to go to a bowling alley and have to have people to actually lift the wheelchairs through the door, carry a wheelchair down over the steps. Then once you actually got in there, if you wanted to bowl, there was another step down that you had to lift the wheelchair down onto the bowling alley. Then on the bowling alley itself, it had a little lip and you had to lift up just to go bowling.

A number of people brought it to my attention. I know the minister is aware because I just got copied on a letter that she responded to some people from New-Wes-Valley that were there, who I was talking to, who sent her a letter. They were impacted by it.

The reason why this is allowed to continue is because of an issue that's been brought up in this House of Assembly. Ever since I was elected in 2011, we were talking about this and we're still talking about it. It's the Buildings Accessibility Act and, in particular, a rule that's there, a policy, a section of the act that talks about the 1981 exemption.

So basically, any building that was built before 1981 doesn't have to be accessible. We've been talking about this at least since 2011 and it's still not addressed. Now, some is the fault of us, oh well, we have heritage buildings and so on, how do you make that wheelchair accessible and so on? Well, I would say that there are ways to make anything wheelchair accessible if you wanted to, but forget about those little exceptions. I mean if we have a building that's basically a square box or big rectangular box, that's all they are, but they just happen to be built before 1981 don't have to be accessible.

So this place, like I say, had to lift the wheelchair down over the stairs to get in there. The alleys weren't accessible. There wasn't enough width really to get around. The bathrooms – my God, the bathrooms were hardly big enough for just a regular person to utilize, let alone in a wheelchair. It was just so obvious and particularly with the backdrop of Special Olympics, and there were a couple of athletes there in wheelchairs and so on, it just really highlighted the need to address this.

I'm not just picking on this one particular facility because we can go around St. John's, we can go around Mount Pearl – I mean, you can go anywhere around the province and you'll see the same thing. Now thankfully there are some property owners who've taken it upon themselves, to be good citizens. Maybe they say – well, it's actually good for business. So maybe that's the motivation. Maybe it's just to be good people, to be inclusive. There are a lot of places that are older than 1981, but the businesses have still made them accessible anyway.

But there are others that continue to be not accessible. They don't have to do it so they're not going to do it, and in this day and age it's totally unacceptable. So I know in the letter of response from the minister, that I got copied on, to this individual from New-Wes-Valley, she indicated that the Accessibility Act was under review and here's the document. Here's What We Heard. This is an issue. We didn't need to do that review to say this was an issue because this has been an issue for a long, long time. My question is: When are we going to address that issue?

I would certainly ask the Minister of Service NL, if she gets up to speak at some point in time, maybe she could address that, as to what are your intentions, Minister, in terms of addressing this issue. We can do reports and studies, here's What We Heard – that's all wonderful. When are we going to actually change the legislation and make accessibility a priority here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Unfortunately, I see I'm out of time but thankfully I have the rest of the evening to get through another much longer laundry list of issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

It's been an interesting afternoon of listening to my colleagues in the House talk about their budgeting priorities. I guess everyone is wanting to have input into the budget which will be delivered on Thursday, March 23.

I think it's notable, Chair, that it's a little early this year. Officials have worked very, very diligently as they often do – as they always do, I should say – to make sure that we have a good budgetary process in place. They have checked every number. They have compiled the Estimates books. It's going to be a very interesting spring of reviewing those Estimates books, listening to the questions that are being asked, delving into the numbers and ensuring that we have, what I am going to say, a very good scrutiny and accountability for the money being spent in this province, Chair.

For the people who are listening today, we are talking about Interim Supply. That is a bill that goes through the House of Assembly, just around budget time every single year, just before budget, that provides what I'm going call interim funding. It provides funding for the ongoing operations of government so that once the budget is brought down, good scrutiny can occur, good accountability can occur but there's still money for the operations of government.

It's very important, I think, for people to understand what we're trying to achieve today. This is day three, Chair, of continuing to talk about Interim Supply. Of course, with Interim Supply, because it is a budgetary bill, you can speak about anything that is happening in your district or any concerns that you have in government.

I've heard, I think, everyone in this House comment that they will be supporting Interim Supply. That is a normal process, Chair, because, of course, this gives money for the continuous operations of government. This is not incremental to budget. This is what is included in budget and there is a percentage taken based on the requirements around current and capital accounts. I know that there's a lot of discussion around what is a current account and what is a capital account and how do we come to the number? Well, it's basically we take the numbers that would be required for the normal operations.

Sometimes, Chair, the normal operations would include things like any contractual obligations that we need to make early in the year for things like transportation and infrastructure. So that would be included in the Interim Supply funding.

This year, we're asking for $2,974,162,700 and that would help us to meet payroll. It will help us to provide income support, health care, education and other expenditures that will be required up until the budget passes.

So on that note, Chair, and recognizing, I think, that my colleagues are ready to move forward, I'll take my seat, thank my colleagues around the House for their comments around Interim Supply and, of course, the broader budgetary issues that they raise and thank them for the diligence that they place towards the review, accountability and transparency of the government expenditures.

Thank you very much, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.” (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 21 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 21 carried without amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of Supply.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $2,974,162,700.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $2,974,162,700.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce the Interim Supply bill, Bill 21, and further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 21, the Interim Supply bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.” (Bill 21)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 21)

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Interim Supply bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 21)

On motion, Bill 21 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Interim Supply bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be read a third 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 21)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm looking for a message but there's no message on loan and tax bills, so we're in good shape.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 28.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

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.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 28.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

Today I stand in this hon. House to bring forward an amendment to The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, for the extension of a provincial guarantee of the bank line of credit for the Stephenville Airport Corporation.

In 2005, the provincial government provided a financial guarantee for the operating line of credit for the Stephenville Airport Corporation. A guarantee of $350,000 was initially approved and then, in 2010, some five years later, it was increased to $600,000, with an additional increase of another $300,000 authorized in 2016, for a total of $900,000.

The last approval in this House of Assembly was to extend the expiry date for the $900,000 guarantee to March 31, 2023. The proposed amendment is to extend the expiry date for the guarantee for the Stephenville Airport Corporation to March 31, 2024.

Speaker, the airport in Stephenville has been an integral part of the Stephenville-Bay St. George region for many decades. For several years, the Stephenville Airport Corporation, the Town of Stephenville and other partners have been focused on identifying new opportunities to address viability and sustainability of the airport.

As we have all witnessed, the pandemic has deeply impacted the air transportation industry, including airports. The significant disruption to passenger movements, globally, during the past three years has resulted in different operational and planning approaches by airlines and airports. The town continues to have acquisition negotiations and anticipates a completion soon, as that is what has been communicated to ourselves as well as to, of course, the media – we've seen that in the last number of weeks – with subsequent and hopefully substantial investment and spin-off opportunities and benefits.

Pending acquisition, Stephenville Airport Corporation will pay off and close the line of credit and the provincial government will terminate the loan guarantee. But, as I've said today, we are extending it to give ample time and opportunity to March 31, 2024. I look forward to the support of my colleagues in approving this amendment so that we can support the Stephenville Airport as it goes through its acquisition process.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further speakers to the bill?

The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

When I stood this time last year to talk about a loan guarantee for the Stephenville airport, I didn't anticipate that I would be standing again this year to talk about a loan guarantee for the Stephenville airport.

I, and my colleague across the way, attended an event in September of last year, 2021, a significant announcement being made that the airport had actually been sold. It had talked about the significant planning that was going to take place and the potential for a significant number jobs, so it created a lot of hope in the Town of Stephenville and the surrounding area that this would come to fruition.

Unfortunately, we're here today because that sale has not been completed. While there have been many dates set aside for the completion of the sale, it still has not happened. Now, the latest, as the minister alluded to, we are being told that hopefully it will be completed sometime by the end of April. It is unfortunate that it has taken a significant period of time for this to occur, but the total gratitude has to go to the taxpayers of the Town of Stephenville because it has been the taxpayers of the Town of Stephenville who have kept this airport open.

The Airport Corporation has tried to bring additional business to the airport, but they have been sporadic because, of course, as we heard about the pandemic. The taxpayers of the Town of Stephenville have continued to provide the funding that is necessary to keep that airport open. So they are looking to make sure that this sale goes through so that they will no longer have to carry that burden.

It is a tremendous asset, I would argue, not just for the Town of Stephenville but for the whole Bay St. George area, and indeed the province, because there is significant land and opportunity there but it can only become an opportunity if someone is willing to turn it into an opportunity.

We have all waited anxiously for this last year and a half for that to happen and we continue to wait for that to happen and hope that at least if some of what has been talked about and what has been promised actually occurs, then the Town of Stephenville and the surrounding area will certainly benefit from increased development.

The one thing I would like to point out again, though, is the importance of the Stephenville airport to the air ambulance program. There are a significant number of flights in and out of Stephenville airport by air ambulance. When you think about it, as the airport west of Corner Brook, it's certainly the closest airport for access to people who need to be medevaced out by air ambulance.

It's also unfortunate, though, that what the government actually pays for that airplane to land at Stephenville doesn't cover the cost of the requirements of the airport when it comes to the maintenance of the airstrip itself, especially in the winter months. The cost of snow clearing and maintaining the airport and keeping it open far exceeds the small amount of revenue that they get from landings by the air ambulance.

We all hope, myself and my colleague across the way, that this is the last time we will have to stand and talk about a loan guarantee for the Stephenville airport and that next year we'll be here talking about the amazing business that's happening at the Stephenville airport and how busy it is and how we're all benefiting from that.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Thank you, Chair.

It's great to have an opportunity to speak on this motion again and to speak about the Stephenville airport and the importance of the Stephenville airport. As other speakers have said, it's an important piece of legislation that comes to this House every year. It's a loan guarantee for about $900,000 that helped sustain the Stephenville airport through a rough period of time.

As the Member opposite just said, we're hoping that this will be last time we will bring it to the House and we're hopeful that the current process of divesting the airport to the private sector will be successful very soon and that we'll see some more activity at the airport.

I'm very optimistic about the future of the airport. I think it's a wonderful asset there. Most people here maybe know that it was one of the largest airports in the world in terms of the size of the runway and the facility that's there. In fact, it's interesting, at one point, the Stephenville airport was an alternative site for landing the Space Shuttle. That'll give you the scope of the infrastructure that's there and what the opportunities might be.

I'm a big believer in the private sector in terms of being able to take a facility like this and realize the potential that's there. So I'm very encouraged that it's a private sector group that is working towards purchasing the airport and have big plans in order to develop things, because the Stephenville airport, it's a big facility. It has lots of infrastructure, but, also, it's very rare to find an airport so closely associated with a seaport and Stephenville is one of the areas that has that sort of connection.

Given everything that's happening in the Bay St. George area, I think there are a lot of opportunities to be had in that area in the next few years. I'm hopeful that we'll see more economic activity. I think this motion today is to put in place, or keep in place, the finances that allow for the airport to make a transition to the private sector.

Also, I think I would be remiss if I didn't note a few people, other than those in the House, who have supported the airport, too. The mayor of Stephenville, Tom Rose, has been an outstanding, in my opinion, supporter of the airport. He's gone far and above to support the Stephenville airport and members of the town council in Stephenville have done the same thing. So I know they're strong supporters of the airport and I think their efforts will come to fruition in time.

I just want to encourage all other Members, as well, to support this motion here today, to support the airport so we can move forward to the next stage and see some economic development in the Bay St. George area. It's a wonderful asset for the whole province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

I had the privilege of landing in Stephenville once at the airport a long time ago. But I just want to say, hopefully, this is the last time we'd have to do this for Stephenville. I wish them well in that endeavour. It's a lot of opportunity there, especially with an airstrip. It brings a lot of opportunity and it brings a lot of different opportunities that, especially in aerospace now. It's a growing industry that we are seeing a lot of changes. It's interesting that this started off its life as a military base and now it's moving on towards the aerospace industry.

I wanted to say I wish the community of Stephenville and surrounding area well. I hope that this is the start of something better for them, the start of growth and opportunities for them. I do want to say that.

This comes up every year and we talk about it every year. Maybe this is the year that they finally get this through the door. I wish them well and I hope that they have all these opportunities with, hopefully, their new owners. Maybe we can see some different growth and some diversification of industry in this province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have made progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

L. DEMPSTER: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now stand in recess until 5:45, 30 minutes.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 5:45 p.m. today.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Ways and Means to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, Bill 28.

SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

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.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now debatingthe related resolution and Bill 28.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to spend a few minutes talking about the financial situation we are in in Newfoundland and Labrador and the benefits here of paying our bills as part of the process but, more particularly here, finding ways to pay the $500 –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: For Stephenville.

D. BRAZIL: Oh, Stephenville. Sorry, I apologize.

S. COADY: Stephenville Airport Corporation. We are just going to vote on it. Then you can do your good speech.

CHAIR: Any further speakers to the Bill 28?

Seeing no further speakers, shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution is carried.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.” (Bill 28)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 28.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 28 carried without amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committees.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that the bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957,to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 28, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 28, and the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957,” carried. (Bill 28)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 28)

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 28 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 28)

On motion, Bill 28 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 28 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28 be now read a third 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 28)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the granting of Supplementary Supply to His Majesty, Bill 25.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I wish to inform that House that I have received a message from Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.

SPEAKER: All rise.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of the sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2023, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:___________________________

              Lieutenant Governor

Please be seated.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the MHA for Mount Pearl North, that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

SPEAKER: The motion is that the message together with the bill be referred to a Committee of Supply and that I now do leave the Chair.

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.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 25, An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2023 the sum of $20,000,000.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

For those that are just tuning in, this is for the ratification of a special warrant required for the cost-of-living rebate.

Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. On October 5, in the fall of last year, our government announced that due to additional revenues coming to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we would be providing a one-time cheque of up to $500 and we would provide that to eligible residents of the province. This one-time benefit is one of more than half a billion dollars in targeted short- and long-term measures since March of 2022 to help residents with the cost of living.

When the program was announced we projected that 392,000 residents – there are only 520,000 of us, Chair – would avail of the program at an estimated cost of $194 million. Again, I will say last year, we were able to have additional revenues come to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and utilize those revenues by providing this cost-of-living cheque.

The $194 million we estimated was based, as I said, on 392,000 residents. The number was based on Canada Revenue Agency data that we had at the time. However, more people than expected filed their 2021 income taxes, which meant that more people were eligible to receive the benefit. Chair, I will say I think that's a very positive thing, because we would want our residents to file their income taxes because some of them would be able to avail of other programs and services within government because they filed. I'll use an example: Income Supplement, Seniors' Benefit are all based on income tax information, so hopefully some of these people who now have filed will be able to take advantage of some of these other programs.

Additional funds, because more people filed, were required in this fiscal year's budget to provide the cheques to all eligible residents. Approximately 411,000 residents in total. Chair, we based the program – we had information from Canada Revenue Agency that said 392,000 residents and that would cost approximately $194 million, and in actual fact 411,000 residents were eligible. That's a very positive thing, I think.

In December, knowing now that more people had filed and more people were now eligible for this program Finance requested budgetary supply through a special warrant. That is the process in which we get additional funds to fund additional program costs. This provided the ability to Finance to continue issuing the cost-of-living cheques without delay.

Chair, the House was closed and we would normally do that through the House through additional Supplementary Supply, which is what we are doing now, but because the House was closed we used a special warrant, and now we debate Supplementary Supply.

The most recent estimated cost is $205 million. Once the program is completed, we will be able to confirm the total cost. I will tell this House that there are approximately 100 late filers that we have not received and we have not provided their cheques to because we're going through getting the final CRA data. There are approximately 100 late filers.

So that's the number of people that are still awaiting their cheques. If anyone has not received their cheque at this point and are awaiting it, they should call the 1-800 number. I'll provide it here: 1-877-729-6376. If you have not received your cheque at this point, please call the number because it either is a wrong address or maybe you're one of the 100 late filers that we're still waiting on information from CRA.

I'm going to repeat that number because I think it's important for all of us: 1-877-729-6376.

So, as I said, the most recent estimated cost is $205 million. Once the program is completed, we'll be able to confirm the total cost. In accordance with section 28(4) of the Financial Administration Act, the special warrant that provided additional funding for the cost-of-living rebate program while the House of Assembly was not sitting is required to be tabled in the House of Assembly.

Special warrants provide an ability to approve additional funding when an urgent or emergency occurs while the House is not sitting. This special warrant approved in December of 2022 provided an additional $20 million to fund additional costs associated with the cost-of-living rebate program to avoid delay in getting these rebates out to the people of the province. We wanted to make sure they received their money so no delay would occur because if we had delayed, it would have been not until March of this year when we would have the opportunity to come back to the House.

To give legislative effect to the special warrant, it has been parliamentary practice to have such warrants ratified by the House of Assembly, and that is what we are doing this evening. Therefore, a Supplementary Supply bill is being tabled in the House of Assembly to ratify this special warrant. Doing so will serve to confirm the amount issued by this special warrant, which supports the principle that in a parliamentary democracy appropriation of public funds is vested in this Legislature. This is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Financial Administration Act which provides that appropriations be approved by an act of this Legislature.

Chair, again, as I said, we based our information on Canada Revenue Agency information. We had anticipated about 392,000 residents would be eligible for this cost-of-living cheque, and indeed 411,000 residents actually filed and were eligible and that's why the cost has gone up. If we do not use the funds anticipated, then, of course, they just rest. Right now we're anticipating that it will be $205 million. When in fact we had appropriated, using the special warrant, an additional $20 million on top of the $194 million that this Legislature had already provided.

Again, I will say there are about 100 late filers that we're still waiting to provide them with their $500 or up to $500 and anyone who has not received their cheque to please call that 1-800 number that I did provide and I'll do it again here: 877-729-6376. Anybody who's missing their payment can certainly call that number and we'll endeavour to get it to them as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you. I implore the House to support this motion. Obviously, we all supported the motion to provide the cost-of-living cheques in the fall of this year. This is just an update and a requirement to add additional monies based on the fact that we have more filers than we thought we would have, which is a very positive thing in my estimation.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's indeed an honour to speak again in the House of Assembly. I do first apologize to the House for being overzealous earlier and giving my shortest speech in my history of 13 years in the House of Assembly. Not that the Stephenville piece of legislation wasn't very important, because I support that and as a former minister did my part to make sure that that valuable asset to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only the West Coast, is still in tact and hopefully moves to a positive venture in the near future as part of that.

But I did reflect when I think about being overzealous to get up and speak and I talked about my shortest speech, which I just gave prior to that, and I'll talk about one of my longest ones on a piece of legislation. One day, the Justice critic a number of years ago inadvertently was not in the House to speak on a very important bill, and I was Deputy House Leader at the time, and the bill, it was said to me you need to get up and speak. I got up and spoke for 11 minutes before somebody passed me the bill, and then spent the rest, the other 49 minutes going right to the hour speaking about the bill as I tried to get more familiar, keeping in mind the Justice portfolio wasn't my forte by no stretch of the imagination.

I remember the Justice minister at the time referring to the speech as the best speech he's heard since Billy Madison gave a speech a number of years ago and it took a while for people to understand what that meant. But if you ever want to go back and look at the movie, Billy Madison, and the speech that was given then, you'd get a better understanding. I made sure after that any piece of legislation which I spoke on that I knew what it was about. I guarantee you that.

So that was my longest speech and I was urged on by my colleagues to see if I could do the full hour on a bill which I knew nothing about as part of it. But it speaks to the volumes here of the legislation and the importance. We couldn't just dismiss the important piece of legislation at the time because it was important. Even if I wasn't fully briefed on it but it was important to the House and for information to get out there and it gave an opportunity for the minister then to rebut some of the things I had said about it as part of that.

When I reflect on what we're doing here today, the special warrant, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador I'll first start on a positive note. I'll try to stay positive as much as possible but there will be certain tidbits or idiosyncrasies that I will want to bring to the forefront when we debate what we're doing here. Any monies that go back to the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is welcome, it is welcome by this side of the House and we see it as a positive as part of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I'd clap over here; I wouldn't clap over there right now because I'm not finished yet. There is still a Billy Madison part to come a little bit later.

But again, the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador is that we have some challenges in our economy; we have some challenges about the cost of living. A lot of it we probably can't control; there are entities outside of our province, this country, internationally, that we can't control.

But there are certain things that we can do to ensure that the quality of life that people have is based on their ability to pay their bills and the financial burdens would be minimal as we look at what we're doing here. The financial support here of $500 is welcome – 100 per cent welcome. There is not a Newfoundlander and Labradorian that I have spoken to over the last number of months who haven't welcomed receiving that cheque; some much more than others. Some do question whether or not they even need it; they could use it. There is a difference between can use it versus actually need it for survival as part of that.

In a gesture of good faith and it speaks volumes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador supporting each other, a multitude of them, those who are in middle income or the higher end, just below the threshold, have said they would have preferred if more of that money went to people on fixed incomes or lower incomes to sustain the impact that the economy is having on them. That made me feel good as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian that people still care about what is happening out there. As much as everybody would like $500, everybody could use it for something, no matter what it was.

So that was a positive thing that I saw from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We saw what happened on the Southwest Coast, back in September, how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians come together in an hour of need. So this was another example of how people would support.

I've had people say I donated it to charities. I've had people say I went out and bought $500 worth of groceries and gave it to a food bank. It makes you feel good in Newfoundland and Labrador. My concern is that we shouldn't be there. The resources we have in this province, the skill set we have here, we shouldn't be at a point where we have to be giving money to people so that they can still just sustain a basic level of life, a level of quality of life, particularly those on the lower income, the working poor and on fixed incomes.

That's the concern that I have here about having a plan and a strategy that guarantees that people in their hour of need are taken care of but, more importantly, the plan that says we should never get to that point where people have to make a decision between healthy food, heating their home, their medication or being able to do basic things that they normally would, if it's buying a gift for a grandchild.

That's the fear I have in this province. With our natural resources, the abundance of it, and the skill set we have and the fact that we're known nationally and internationally for all the positive things that, at the end of the day, we still have these multitude of challenges when it comes to having to ensure people have a basic quality of life when we're in an hour of need.

So there has to be a better plan of action here and we're all responsible for trying to come up with that plan of action. If it's through a budgetary process, if it's through legislation, if it's through ensuring that anything that we buy or sell or any contract we do nationally or internationally is in the best interest of the people of this province. That should be the main objective of everybody in this House and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian as part of this process.

While we welcome the money, and no doubt I've seen smiles on people's faces because around Christmastime it was a great, additional financial lessening of burden for people here to be able to get over that hump and I do appreciate that.

One of the other ones that I have to give kudos to the staff in the Department of Finance for. There are a multitude of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly situations in people's lives, they moved – CRA only tracks you once. They'll track you on the last address you gave them. So there were people expecting a cheque and the cheque probably went out; due diligence, staff did their thing, got it out but it went to an address. Then it was about, does the person there put it back in the mail? Is it a delay on that getting back? If it never gets back and somebody takes it and inadvertently throws it in the garbage or does something else with it, unfortunately, what impact does that have on the person who needs that $500 and who legally are entitled to it? What happens there?

I will give full kudos because I had the privilege of working with the department on a number of files in my own case and the minister made me aware of one in my district. I think it was Tibb's Eve, on a Friday afternoon, when Confederation Building was closing down we managed to, working closely with her officials, get that cheque for this young, single parent family member. That speaks volumes of what the civil service here –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: – are willing to do in their department, knowing the need that was there as part of that process. So kudos to that part of the process as part of that.

I still have to talk about the need we have here and that we have to have a plan of action that works for everybody. There has to be a system to know how much money we owe; who are we paying it out to; who is entitled to it; and how is it going to best be suited to help those individuals out as part of that.

There are days here that I think things are under control. Then there are a lot of other days that I shake my head and say, is there a plan of action here? While the intentions are good and well intended, I'm not quite sure they're always going to be beneficial because of some of the drawbacks of not planning in advance.

You've heard me say it and you've heard our side of the House say, look, we're collaborative. We're open. We'll co-operate as much as possible to do the right things. We'll worry about politics when it's time to worry about politics. We need to know that there's a strategy and share that strategy. Maybe we can add a tidbit to improve it. We talk to a lot of people out in the general public, as I know your Members do over there. A lot of great ideas out there. The solutions to everything in our province that need to be solved are out there with the people who deal with it on a day-to-day basis.

So a little bit more openness on what's happening and some of the challenges that you're going to have here. You know, at the end of the day, this is about ensuring that the quality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador is much better in the future than it is in the past. I had a person say to me that we should be looking for the future. The next generation of those who sit in the House of Assembly, the next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be planning for the future. Our future should be so bright. If it's Upper Churchill, if it's Muskrat Falls, if it's Lower Churchill, if it's wind power, if it's our fishing industry, our agricultural industry, our aquaculture industry, the mining industry, all the things that we have here, all of the natural resources. If it's our skill set, the tradespeople here, the skilled Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, aerospace, IT, all the things that we have in this province should be the precursor for a future that's so bright in Newfoundland and Labrador that the tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who went away because they were forced to go away, because of the economy or opportunities employment-wise, would flock to come back home. And for a period of time, we had that. For a short period of time, we had that in Newfoundland and Labrador. People were coming home in droves. The skill set was coming back. Young people were coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador, or they weren't leaving.

We need to be able to get to that process again. My hope and I know the hope on this side would be that somewhere along the way we come up with a strategy, we come up with a collaborative approach, there's a plan of action, that we're not being reactive every time but we're being proactive.

I would like to have a philosophy that we live by that says your best day in the past will be 10 times better than the best in the future. That's were we live now. I'd rather have it spin the opposite way; that, at the end of the day, your worst day in the past will not be as bad as any day in the future.

To do that, we have to have a plan of action. I don't know if we have that in this House right now. I don't know if the government has that. There's my criticism here. I'm not quite sure they have a plan. There's one to announce a lot of things, but does it solve any of the issues that we have out there? $500 would be a band-aid solution, but we need a full strategy. How do you keep the cost of living down? How do you make sure the carbon tax doesn't drive people out of their homes come July, August, September, this time next year? How do they heat it? What choices do people have to make there? There has to be a plan of action that works for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

While we're going to support the extra $20 million that's necessary to ensure everybody gets their cheque, because people need those cheques, I think if this is going to continue in the future – and I think right now because the economy is not stable enough that people would understand that the cost of living is going to be under control, they're going to need these supports. We'll probably ask you that question in the very near future: Is this going to be in the budget on Thursday as part of the process? But I would hope there's a better plan that ensures that those people who need it the most are going to get it. Or the organizations, agencies or programs that can best service those people are the ones that are supported also, so that there's a plan of action.

The old cliché give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a person to fish, you feed them for a lifetime. We need to get a little bit more preplanning on what we're doing here in this House of Assembly. I'm asking the government, I'm asking them to dig down, be creative on your strategies and think it out. Don't just react. Start being proactive on what you're doing there. Use the asset you have. The assets are the people of this province. The assets are on this side of the House of Assembly here. We're open to do what needs to be done.

I do ask in the future that whatever it is that you do, you do it in the best interests of the people so that your worst day in the past becomes your best day in the future. That's how we're going to get Newfoundland and Labrador to where it needs to go and guarantee that people in this province have a better quality of life in the future.

Mr. Chair, on that note I will be supporting this, because I do think it does help. I do think there needs to be a better plan. There has to be a different approach to what we're doing here. There has to be a longer plan so that the $500 cheques are giving to a charity to do something else that it benefits, that the people of this province don't have to rely on that to feed themselves, to be warm in their homes or to make a decision between medication or not having proper medication.

Mr. Chair, we look forward to this and, more importantly, we look forward to the budget on Thursday to see if the strategy is there to assess and help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'm recognizing the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

For all those people viewing at home, a short time ago, they watched our leader with the shortest speech ever but it was me, as the Member for the District of Bonavista, who mentioned to him we're on Bill 25. How well he handled it. The only thing he said to me was that we need to send you back to school. Fantastic, he was overzealous.

I think we're all onside with this bill. I harken back to the budget last year when we were looking at it and day after day we were driving home that the budget needed to contain a cost-of-living piece that helped out those people that were out there. What the government rolled out was the $500 cheque per resident of Newfoundland and Labrador under the monetary threshold.

That was what the plan was at that time. I was surprised that the amount was given out – that, at our office, even those that were receiving cheques had passed away in the previous calendar year. That was surprising, but I am sure it was helpful. But that was a surprise element that I know we had not discussed in the House.

We talk about a plan and I think whatever you do in life, you need to make sure that you've got a solid plan. I had been in the House for a little over three years and listened to the discussions that we had. I often look at rural Newfoundland and many people in rural Newfoundland would look at it and say, are we part of a plan? We all know that we have declining and dwindling populations in rural Newfoundland. Is there a plan to arrest it? Is there a plan that is going to mobilize some instruments in order to grow and retain the population that we have in rural Newfoundland? That is a fair question. I think any litmus test of a budget or a government, good governance, is that there is a plan; you can see a tangible plan.

Many people in the District of Bonavista are a little worried that there is no plan. Let me go through a couple of items that they would discuss with me, as their representative in the House of Assembly, as to what would cause them concern.

Residents in the District of Bonavista, that live in Bonavista and other communities on the peninsula, are aware now that it is quite conceivable that they don't own the land of which they have lived on and the generation before and the generation before the generation prior, they don't own the land. Is that comforting for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? They are concerned about Crown lands.

In 2015, before the current government came into power, there was a working group on Crown lands from real estate agents to lawyers. It was a group that spent a considerable amount of time, filed a report to government on how to fix and address the Crown land issues. But that was eight years ago. We still have people who would be in the District of Bonavista and other rural elements of the province who are cognizant they don't own the land of which their house resides on. That's unfortunate.

I presented a petition today, and I appreciate the minister's response because he said his department officials were looking into it. We have communities in rural Newfoundland, Bonavista not excluded, Brooklyn, Harcourt, Elliston, that there are no driveways which would have the 115-metre clearance on both sides for a driveway, to access the main road, to be installed. They apply for and denied. Highway access, I would think, is an issue in rural Newfoundland. We have large swaths of land in rural Newfoundland in the District of Bonavista that you can't get access to the main road because they don't meet that regulation.

Is that a factor in the viability and the growth of rural Newfoundland? I would say it sure is. One hundred residents in the community of Harcourt, neither one meeting that regulation, neither one. But the department would tell them no more development in Harcourt because you don't meet that regulation, when there isn't one landowner who currently resides there who would have that ability of 115 metres on each end.

I spoke in this House on several occasions previously about an Advanced Education, Skills and Labour office back then when it was called an AESL office in Bonavista. In the budget of 2016 government closed the office in Bonavista. It served 100 people per day. The records would show 100 people per day it served and the mandate and the news release that was sent out stated that we saw changes to the delivery of employment and income support services throughout the province. The regional services are provided primarily through telephone, email, online and outreach.

So 100 clients a day in Bonavista, close the office, move the residents, who were employees at the AESL office, an hour and a half up to the neighbouring community and said you can operate from here, but our mandate is that you can fulfill your obligation to these clients by telephone, by email and outreach. So what happens now is that these individuals work an hour and a half away. They travel down to serve the population every two weeks. They serve them and then I guess they go home because they're from the lower part of the peninsula.

I had asked the minister in a previous government, what were the savings? We have office space in Bonavista of which they could be housed in government, like at the College of the North Atlantic. They could have operated out of there. But when you think what their mandate is, is to work with individuals with income support, students, persons with disabilities, people with literacy challenges, single parents, apprentices, underemployed individuals, it was a valuable office that was removed.

I mentioned a little earlier about seniors that would have to get a driver's licence or a renewal. Currently, at the time, they can't do that in the community of Bonavista. I mentioned to a couple of doctors and one in particular said that's shameful. If a senior who resided their whole life in Bonavista has got to go up to a neighbouring community, in an area that may not be familiar to him or her, in order to get their driver's licence renewed, I would say that is not very complimentary to the seniors that would be in the District of Bonavista on the lower part of the peninsula.

Health care, we talked a lot about it. My colleague from Ferryland was talking about the ambulance service. I referenced before that if you have Halifax Street, Ottawa Street in St. John's, you're seven to 10 minutes. I know we can't expect seven to 10 minutes for a response in the District of Bonavista. A lady last week collapsed in her house, her family was present and they called the ambulance. They had to call again after 30 minutes but, at the 45-minute mark, the ambulance showed up. The hospital was in diversion and had to be transferred. That lady, Ms. Elliott, is still in ICU at Clarenville, G. B. Cross.

Those are the realities that when we look at rural Newfoundland and planning for rural Newfoundland and have only touched on some that would come to the forefront in discussing them.

I want to conclude by saying hello to Wilmore Coole. Now, if you don't know Wilmore Coole, he is from Newmans Cove. I went to a fire department banquet and ball in Five Coves, on the Bonavista side of the peninsula, Newmans Cove, Birchy Cove, Amherst Cove, Middle Amherst Cove and Upper Amherst Cove.

Wilmore is 88 years old. He was there in attendance, not as active as he was but, boy, did he look great. Thirty-nine years of service and he watches the House of Assembly all the time, he stated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: So a big hello to Wilmore and I think my time is up.

Chair, thank you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I want to pick up on the theme of the Leader of the Opposition which is about a plan of action, about planning.

As a former teacher, I can tell you our life was very much determined by plan. Either it was the long-term plan for the year, which you had to lay it out for students; short term, or what you were planning for this week, tomorrow; or even medium term, whether mid-term report cards, the Christmas break, you name it, there was always some planning.

There was always something somewhere along the line, Chair, that was unexpected. An emergency at home or the AV equipment wasn't working and you had to come up with a plan on the spot. But for the most part, we had a pretty good idea of where we were going and how we were going to get there and if we were doing our jobs right, then our students had a pretty good idea as well.

I guess what I am looking at with the cost-of-living cheques is – I'll be the first to say that the people who got them, no one is going to turn down a $500 cheque. They'll find use for it, whether it is for donating to a cause. Or maybe putting a little money down on the credit card. Or, as some of my constituents did, finally paying for much-needed dental work because they didn't have dental coverage.

I guess that is where I am looking at the long term versus the short-term relief. This measure was touted as a one-time benefit. I think we've got to stop looking in terms of one-time benefit and if we're going to do one-time benefit, how we can plan to do it better.

Certainly we found, in how this rolled out, that there was a problem accessing cheques, from many of our constituents they didn't get it for whatever reason. They had to go through the process of verifying that they didn't receive the cheque. There didn't seem to be a plan about how we're going to make sure that women who might be fleeing violence that their cheque didn't end up in the hands of their abuser. As I understand it, some of the challenges were in printing of the physical cheque and the cost associated with that.

I can't help but think certainly that going through CRA or through an electronic deposit would have helped avoid many of the challenges. Maybe there would still have been the need for government-issued paper cheques, but for the vast majority they would have been a lot smaller and could have been done electronically through CRA.

It's interesting that PEI at that same time in October, at the end of October – and I guess they're looking at making sure that their people have the money in hand before Christmas – an increase to the sales tax credit, if you look at up to $500 or more for people. But they went through CRA, since CRA would be responsible for the tax collection.

My point here is that we could have avoided a lot of the logistical issues here for people and maybe alleviated some of their anxiety. But that's to do with how we roll it out and maybe, in future, government needs to start looking at it, well, how do we do this, minimize the cost? I would also assume that the minister didn't wake up one day and say I think I've come up with a great idea; let's give out cost-of-living cheques. This is not something that would have just happened spontaneously. There would have been some discussion on this and it could have been handled in advance.

Long term – I'll go back to the fact that one of my constituents in particular, much-needed dental work. Not cosmetic, but it was affecting her health. I think when we're starting to look at relief for people, it's going to have to come down to the things that are going to have a long-term impact on their health and well-being and on the province itself. Because while my teeth may be healthy, someone else's teeth is going to affect their ability to work, their ability to have good health, their use of the health care system and their own quality of life.

Drug coverage – in terms of the number of people who are without drug coverage such as insulin. Income support – and I'll have more to say about this in our budget but the fact is that if income support had been indexed from 2014, when it was the last increase, it would be up to an extra $100 per cheque, per person to help them make ends meet now, but we're not.

Guaranteed basic liveable income, affordable housing – if there's a crunch on it, we've heard it here. The Minister of CSSD has said it and I know he's committed to housing. We do keep him on his toes but in the last major cold snap that we had, we shouldn't be saying in hindsight we should have been better prepared. I think from here on in, we've got to look at a long-term strategy.

I can see sometimes government does short-sighted things. I'll go back to the clawing back of CERB payments from Income Support recipients. There was an opportunity there to say yes, maybe some of these people should not have applied but they did. In many cases, what the people were using CERB for wasn't a trip down South. It was actually to maybe eat out – something they had never done – buy new furniture, a new bed, new clothes. It was basically for necessities. Maybe buying the things that they couldn't buy their children before, for that matter. In clawing it back, it created unnecessary hardship. We might say, well, abuse is abuse. Well, I can look at lots of corporate abuse and we seem to be less upset with that.

I'll finish off with this and I read this article out with regard to how a guaranteed basic income could put food banks out of business. Well, I like the idea of a consumption insurance that a basic income would support or would take care of.

I'll grumble at the price of food, the increase in the profiteering that takes place there. I may grumble at the increase in fuel prices as the result of corporate greed there. In the end, I'll still buy what I need to buy to put food on the table, but for many people, the people who call my office, even before inflation, their food budget took up an enormous part of their overall family budget. They had no room in which to absorb the shock.

So I think, in many ways, we can't be thinking in terms of the disaster insurance, the one-offs, the $500 cheques, the food banks, the charity aspect of it; we've got to look at how do we make sure that, in the end, people are protected from these shocks so that they are healthier, that they don't rely on the health care system as much.

The question comes down to – and look at this, we've seen lots of announcements, but what is the overall commitment then to a long-term plan such as the Health Accord Newfoundland and Labrador? Because that does lay out a plan. Sixty per cent which deals with the social determents of health. If we're going to fix the health care system, then we've got to go one step beyond offering the retention bonuses to making sure that we fix the problem in the long run so people don't have to rely on the health care system and they're healthier as a result.

I'll leave this last point, in my last 20 seconds or so. Financial support of not-for-profit organizations: They do tremendous work that would fall in the lap of government if they didn't have them, but if you do not index the financial support you give them, then it amounts to a cut and it severely hampers their ability to do the work they set out to do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I'm going to take a page out of the MHA for Bonavista's book and acknowledge one of my constituents who is watching here today: Mr. Pat Healey of Holyrood. I had the occasion to be with him and his wife Loretta on Saturday, at which time they celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Healey himself will be celebrating his 90th birthday this summer and he has been a keen watcher and observer of the House of Assembly proceedings every day. So we're very happy that you have joined us here today, Mr. Healey.

Today, I think that the important thing for me to focus on is, with respect to this particular bill, I'm going to also take a page out of the leader's book as well in terms of trying to take a more positive approach to affairs that affect the province and the people of our province. I do think it's important that we look at, for example, this $500 rebate, and do acknowledge that there was a positive benefit to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are definitely in need in view of the cost-of-living struggles that they are facing now. It was definitely appreciated and a great benefit for many of the people in the province.

However, I think it's also important when we do look at different policies that are in place, we have to also assess them. I think it's a really important role of the Official Opposition to do that. We need to question and we need to challenge some of the policies and the decisions that are being made. I think one of the main themes, it seems to me, is very prominent is with respect to whether there has been a plan. We see this example of the cost-of-living rebate, the $500, and certainly it did go back into the hands of the people. As that's been stated by our leader, that's a good thing.

However, we also need to look at whether there has been a comprehensive plan. We all know the importance of planning. We all know that having a plan is important, because first of all it will set goals. I think I can speak, I'll say, on my own behalf, and I'm sure that all of the Members here in this hon. House of Assembly have as their perhaps primary objective and goal is to improve the quality of life of every single resident of the province that they represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I would say unanimously that is something that we all hold very dear to our heart is about improving the life and the quality of life of every resident. We know that there are many complex and complicated issues that face the people of the province. But if we don't have a plan, Chair, to break down those problems into smaller problems, those complex and complicated ones, then we're not going to be in a very good position.

We need to have a plan that reveals all the weaknesses that may exist. We can't just steamroll ahead and hope that things are going to work out and make funding announcements, one after the other, if there isn't a coherent, consistent, comprehensive plan to follow and that involves thinking critically, that involves forward-thinking that doesn't just remain reactive.

There has to be planning. There has to be a very deliberate and intentional plan. Otherwise we're going to see things, as we often do, in the provision of services to our people and that's the tremendous waste of taxpayers' money that we see going on, and I would argue that's because there's no plan, Chair.

So we have to make sure that our resources are being spent where they need to be spent. We have to ensure that we take more resources and we put them where they're needed. Not putting them where they're not necessary. That's what happens, I would argue, when we don't have a comprehensive plan. We also know that planning reduces risk. It's a very critical piece to ensuring that risk is reduced.

That will bring me to the last point that I wish to make, which is in regard to the cyberattack. Now we see that the current Information and Privacy Commissioner was challenged in court by the provincial government. They sought an application challenging, basically, asking for the court to rule on the issue of whether there was reasonable apprehension of bias or an actual apprehension of bias.

So just to help you understand what that concept is, basically, it's questioning whether there is impartiality and whether there is a fair process or there's fairness on the part of the Commissioner.

Chair, that is of concern to me for a number of reasons. We see that the Commissioner has issued a press release addressing this issue and rejecting the claims of the government that there was any reasonable apprehension of bias or any actual bias. However, in the public interest, he made the decision, and in accordance and in compliance with his statutory mandate, he basically has recused himself and will not be pursuing or not leading this investigation into the cyberattack. So the investigation will be completed and it's of utmost concern to him, according to his release, that this be done in a timely manner, that there be no delays, that a report be released to the public about exactly what happened with the cyberattack.

So he has recused himself. He's not having any further involvement in the investigation. Why? Because he wanted to avoid any lengthy delays and any expensive court proceedings. So I commend the statutory Officer for taking that courageous stand, Mr. Chair. He has now delegated his authority to someone else to conclude the investigation.

But in the two minutes I have, I just think it's very important for us to ask a few questions. Why was this issue raised now or March 15? Why was this brought before the courts at this point in time? The Commissioner has been involved in this investigation for more than a year now. All parties, including government, knew about his role at that time, a year ago, at the beginning of this investigation. So the question has to be asked: Why now? Why on March 15, actually, was this proceeding taking the independent Officer, statutory Officer, to court questioning whether there was a conflict of interest and apprehension of bias?

In his defence, he said that he reviewed precedent, gave it careful consideration. He concluded that any former roles that he had, had no reasonable apprehension of bias. He could recall no instance at all in which decisions were taken about cybersecurity during this period, while he was in these particular roles. I just wonder – it just seems strange to me why this is happening now.

So those questions have to be asked. It goes to the issue of transparency and why is his knowledge, which he had in his previous roles, being interpreted as a negative and not that it was very much a beneficial attribute for him to have.

On that note, I would ask the government to try, when they're going forward – we need to have transparency. We need to promote accountability. We need to have a way to measure government's performance and guard against any possible misuse of power.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair's recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To move on with the list, the next thing I want to talk about, Mr. Chair, and this is probably, I would say, next to health care and I guess cost-of-living issues in general, the next biggest issue that I keep hearing from people, my constituents and others as well, but a lot of people in my district, the Southlands area in particular I think, is child care accessibility. I know it's been raised here over and over again. We haven't really gotten a lot of what I would call the answers people certainly would want to hear.

I know there have been some measures taken and I'll give credit to the former minister. I have to say that when he was minister I had a number of issues raised as related to child care, more so with child care agencies, and I have to say that he was very accommodating in meeting with him and ironing things out.

I know this new grid is coming out. I'm hopeful that it's going to really be something meaningful. I understand that government is looking at encouraging more people to be ECEs and going to expand the classes and so on. But I was really shocked when I heard the minister in answering a question, I don't know if it was last week or the week before, I believe he said – I don't want to put words in his mouth – 500 ECEs have left over the last year or so that they're trying to attract back. I was really shocked, to be honest with you, to hear that there had been that many ECEs over the last year or so who actually left their profession altogether and these incentives are put in place to try to get them back.

It really begs the question, I suppose: Why did they leave and why wasn't something done sooner? But at least I'm glad to see something is happening and I'm hopeful that when this wage grid finally comes out that it's going to be something that's going to be very meaningful.

Even as late as today, I've gotten two emails a day from people who are ECEs in my district, talking about the fact that they still have a number of issues. It is not all wages; wages are certainly part of it but they feel generally that they've been disrespected. In the words of the person who emailed me, I won't read it, but bottom of the barrel when it comes the system. That is how that individual described how she and her other colleagues feel like they have been the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the care and education of our children, which is very unfortunate.

So I'll look forward to the budget, but I do want to raise it here again in the House, put it on the record because, again, I've had so many parents, young families, reach out to me and professionals. I've had two doctors from my district who have told me that here we are talking about we have a health care crisis and we need doctors. I'm a doctor and I can't go back to work because I had a baby and I have nobody to look after my child. That's pretty sad. I've had nurses; I've had other health care professionals.

So here we are trying to attract and retain health care professionals. Here we are throwing out $100,000 bonuses, $200,000 bonuses and so on to get doctors and retain doctors and here I have two doctors, for sure, in my district who have emailed me who are telling me that they want to go back to work and they can't go back to work and be a doctor because they have no child care. That's a reality. As I've said, I've heard from nurses and other health care professionals as well who are in the same boat so we really have to figure this out.

While the $10 a day is great, it's great if you can avail of it, but I tell you I heard from a couple of people recently who said it was like rubbing salt on the wounds. It really pissed them off, quite frankly, because you are hearing about everyone is so happy: my God, I got $10-a-day daycare, isn't it wonderful. But here I am, I have no daycare, I either have no daycare and I can't work or my spouse can't work, whatever that case may be.

Another issue which is happening is people are forced into leaving their kids in these unregulated settings where they feel they are being totally taken advantage of because they are being charged what might have been, say, $40 or $45 a day in some of these day homes, now it's going up to $55, $60, $70 a day and then all these demands like I want two weeks vacation, I'm taking all stat holidays, I want a week of sick leave. If anything comes up besides that you can't send your child but you have to pay me anyway. If your child comes to my house and they're there for 60 per cent of the day and then I get sick or I have to leave, you're going to have to come get them and you still have to pay me anyway. If you don't like those terms, you can take your kid home and I'll get someone else who will do it. I've gotten emails on that.

I have personal experience in my own immediate family with child care with that circumstance in place with all these wild demands you never heard of before. Now, I'm not begrudging somebody the fact that even if you have a home daycare that you're not supposed to be like a slave or whatever, I'm not suggesting that. But, my goodness, whoever heard of that before? Someone with a home daycare and now they're saying I'm having two or three weeks annual leave. I'm having all the government stats. I'm having sick leave. I'm having family leave. I'm having all this stuff and you're going to pay me, even though now you're going to have to take a day off work because – I had in my family one day, we had a situation where they said my brother is getting married so I'm taking Friday off. My brother is getting married, I'm taking Friday off so you can't send your child here today but you have to pay me anyway. That's a special circumstance that came up.

This is the kind of stuff that parents are being forced and they have no choice. They have no choice but go along with this stuff or have nobody at all. It's crazy.

I don't know if all Members realize that some of this stuff is going on, but I'm telling you it really is. So we have to figure this out. We have to figure this stuff out.

We're talking about the economy and growing the economy and growing the workforce and how many people could be contributing and want to be contributing to the workforce but they're not able to because of this stuff that's going on because they have no child care. It is a big issue, a big issue.

Now, Mr. Chair, I went on a bit longer than I thought I would, I'm running out of time on this time up but I'll be up again.

I'll just make a quick reference to home care – or no, I'll leave home care. I'll make a quick reference to long-term care. I did ask the minister about this and I brought it up in the House. I just want to say on behalf of the group, Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights, who continue to reach out to me. They continue to be an active group. They have a big following on social media and so on and they've asked me to keep raising these issues and I will. I stood here in this House of Assembly for months on end with petitions around the plight of seniors in long-term care, particularly those with dementia and Alzheimer's disease and the requirement to have proper staffing ratios.

We brought it specifically, specifically they had it in their petitions and I spoke about it in this House of Assembly numerous times, the issue around if you're going to have common areas and there are people there that could potentially be violent or not know what they're doing, there has to be supervision so that someone can't hurt themselves or hurt someone else.

Here we are now the last couple of months, we're after seeing – there was another one in the news, I think it was today or yesterday of a lady that got beat up or whatever, someone attacked her on a dementia or Alzheimer's ward or whatever the case might be.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Botwood.

P. LANE: Out in Botwood I think. Yes, out in Botwood.

So this is another one. I understand we're doing the review. This is not me saying this I would say to the minister, this is the group Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights who quite clearly told me to say they're sick of reviews. They're sick of it. They've been reviewed enough. Get the proper staffing in place at the long-term care homes. Make sure there's proper supervision to protect the seniors. We don't need a review to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to talk a little bit now on the cost-of-living rebate and also to let everyone know that in my district those $500 cheques, those one-time cheques were really welcomed. They helped out a lot and people really appreciated them. So there are no complaints from my district.

But the reason why they were so appreciated is because of the high cost of living. When you look at the Health Accord, it talked about the overall health of the province and fixing the health care system. They talked about social indicators of health.

In my district, the reason why those one-time cheques were so welcomed is because of all the high costs. The cost of heating your home, the cost of buying food to feed yourself, to feed your children, a place to live, a safe place, quality of life and mental health, Chair.

Chair, just getting back to the cost-of-living rebates. This is a one-time payment for people, but that's going to do very little to help the people in my district. This summer the cost of gasoline was frozen at $2.457 a litre for people to go out, because they couldn't afford to buy food at the store, they needed to hunt and fish, which is really, really important, Chair. The gas was frozen at $2.457 a litre. When I looked at the Island, the Island portion of our province, when I looked at communities that were totally remote, isolated, could only get there by boat, they were paying a lot less for gasoline, but in my district we were frozen at $2.457 a litre.

Now, when the price freeze went off for the summer and they put on the winter freeze it was at $2.063 a litre. So the problem that my people are facing – God bless the province for giving us a one-time payment of $500, but in actual fact when you can't afford to go out and hunt and fish in the summer and you've got to advertise on Facebook for a gas buddy so you can actually share the cost of gasoline to go out and try to get a little bit of fish to feed your family, to prepare for the winter, to go out and get some waterfowl like ducks and some geese so you can actually feed your family. It's really, really, really shameful when we've got to be so appreciative of a one-time payment of $500.

You know, there's something wrong in the province. We look at heating our house in the winter. When we look at the heating our house in the winter, our stove oil is froze at $2.40 a litre and I challenge you to find anywhere else in the province that comes close to that.

When we look at our temperatures in the winter, we need stove oil because we can't afford the gasoline to go out and haul wood. Then if you actually can afford the gasoline, who's going to actually haul the wood? We are reduced to being reliant on manpower, the physical abilities for people to be able to go out and cut wood, chop it up, bring it back to the community, bring it into the house, put it into the wood stove.

In actual fact, a lot of our communities are dependent on stove oil because we can't afford to heat our house with electricity because when we go over that little small life block of 1,000 kilowatt hours, we go up to 19 cents a kilowatt hour. Where else in the province is anyone paying 19 cents a kilowatt hour to heat your house? Nowhere. It's really, really discriminatory.

Really, when we talk to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, my fellow MHA sitting next to me was there, the reason why we're paying 19 cents a kilowatt hour is they don't want us to use electricity to heat our houses. Chair, you were actually in the room. They said that they didn't understand the implications of the hardship they were forcing on the people in my communities to actually be reliant on stove oil or to burn wood. Why is that such a challenge? The challenge is mental health issues and physical health issues are the result of us not being able to heat our house, to feed our families and have a safe place to live.

The federal government's housing advocate came to the District of Torngat Mountains and Nunatsiavut Health and Social Development got waivers from people in the community so that this housing advocate in the federal government could actually go into their houses. Do you know what the advocate said? She's having nightmares because of the living conditions that people were living in. My brother is the Finance minister for Nunatsiavut and he told me that she said she's really, really worried about those people. She's still having concerns about them because of the living conditions that they're living in.

Why is it so expensive to have a house on the North Coast? It costs $250,000 for the building lot. That doesn't include putting the house on top. There are a lot of things that are not fair, that are not right and it doesn't appear to be above board. Why is it so expensive? Because in actual fact it was only after land claims and Nunatsiavut got its land claim settlement and actually had a bit of money to spend to develop its communities all of a sudden these huge costs are there.

Another big thing that's impacting our quality of life, our ability to feed our families, the ability to buy nutritious food, is we are paying huge costs. The AngajukKâk of Makkovik actually said we are paying the costs of having the South Coast have full access to the Trans-Labrador Highway. I have to tell you, we congratulate them and we support them having access to be able to drive between their communities and to go to the Island and to go to other communities in Labrador. We actually support them in that and we appreciate the fact that they have that liberty.

But we don't have that liberty. In actual fact we look at that, one of the costs of that, what the AngajukKâk of Makkovik was indicating was because they have the highway they took away the North Coast freight boat that we had access to. Everybody had the freight boat when nobody was connected by road, but now everybody else but my communities are connected by road and we don't actually have the freight boat anymore and we pay huge costs for food, we pay huge costs for household goods, we pay huge costs for our snowmobiles that we need to haul the wood and hunt and fish, and our ATVs and anything we get into our communities, even paint. Everything has gone up.

In actual fact when we look at it, we've gone backwards. Actually in our communities we are worse off than we were in the '70s. In the '70s, we didn't even actually have TV. That's how backward the development in the communities were, but in actual fact our quality of living was much, much better and our overall health care was much, much better because we could afford to heat our houses, we could afford to feed our children and we could afford to be living in safe housing.

Another thing, too, is looking at electricity. Electricity now we're paying 19 cents a kilowatt hour. The average in Canada is 13 cents a kilowatt hour. On the Island, they don't pay any more than 13 cents a kilowatt hour right now as far as I know. So it's really, really important for us to be able to show that, the disparity for the North Coast communities in Northern Labrador, is really unfair and unjust and it's impacting our quality of life and it's actually impacting our health.

Just looking at our ability to travel – just recently, we had a heritage forum where Nunatsiavut was sharing information amongst its people. They scheduled it; it had to be cancelled three times because of the weather. People can't travel and people can't do normal business. There was a hockey tournament in Nain. Some people went down there and they were basically stuck there for almost a week.

Look at the Labrador Winter Games now, trying to get home to the North Coast. Everybody is stuck because of the weather. Patients trying to travel, being stuck because of the weather. Basically what's happening is the quality of our life is severely impaired and something needs to be done about that, starting off with the cost of being able to heat your house. If you can heat your house, you have more money to be able to buy food so you can feed your children so that they can be healthy, so you can be healthy and also your elders can be healthy in the community.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Trimper): Thank you.

I now call on the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

The debate this evening is around the additional $20 million for a program that was launched, as the minister had alluded to, last October. There's no doubt, I mean, it's been an extreme benefit to people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I've always said, any time you can put money back into pockets of people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's always a good day.

I do believe, though, that unfortunately this program was rushed and there was a need to rush it, but at the same time, that's probably what some people have a concern with.

I'll just give you a little story. I had a gentleman in his 80s who called me – he's not in my district; he was from the West Coast. He called me up to talk about the $500 cheque he got. He was very grateful to have gotten that $500 cheque. He was very grateful to have gotten it, but what concerned him a little bit about it all, was down the road, three houses down, there was a couple who were making $80,000 a year each and they got $1,000. He couldn't understand how they could get $1,000 when his total income for the year was $24,000.

That has been some of the problem when we do things perhaps faster than we ought to do or without having a plan about how we might do it. The budget is coming. We've been told to stay tuned because the reality of it is the conditions that led to government giving out this $500 have not changed. We still have inflation. Yes, it has gone down slightly but it is still extremely high. People are still concerned about how they're going to heat their homes. People are still concerned about the high cost of food.

Those issues have not gone away so it is going to be very important on budget day to see how we address some of those issues on a more permanent basis. But part of it is the fear that people have about what will happen to their prices come July 1, when the carbon tax increase comes into effect.

There is no denying the impact that those types of increases have on people with fixed incomes and there are a significant number of people in this province who have fixed incomes – retirees on fixed pensions; others on the lower income scale. So they are extremely nervous about how they are going to be able to afford this.

We will hear that the carbon tax is a federal program or a federal tax, but it is going to have a significant impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So as we stay tuned for the budget coming on Thursday, we will listen to see and hear what may be there because these types of programs that have been offered in the past are definitely going to be needed again in this fiscal year. There is no doubt about that.

Lots of times we have heard lots of discussion about things we cannot control. We have heard lots about the health care and the shortages of staff. It is happening all over Canada. Okay, we can all agree with that but there are things in health care that we can control that would make life easier for people. Some of those are simply things like the nurse practitioner, the fact that if you're a senior in my district it's $35 a visit and $300 for your membership fee to join the clinic. In other districts, it's $65.

I recognize the challenges of understanding how we might fund nurse practitioners for those programs, but surely we have to find a way. So I am cautiously staying tuned to the budget so that I might hear something that will find a way so that the people who are having to pay $35 or $65 to see a nurse practitioner, no longer have to do that.

On the subject of nurse practitioners, the collaborative health care clinics or the renamed Family Care Teams, as of today, require to have services of nurse practitioners. Yet, we graduate somewhere between 12 to 14 a year. If you talk about 35 clinics scattered all over Newfoundland and Labrador and if you average one or two nurse practitioners in each of those clinics, how many years is it going to take before we can fully staff those clinics? It's going to be a significantly long period of time.

There has to be a way. How do we increase the number of nurse practitioners that we actually graduate every year? But the other piece of it is, if you turn around and look at all of the nurse practitioners that are currently employed in our health care system, in our four regional health authorities, how many of them are actually working in direct patient care or primary care?

How many of them are actually part of a medical team right now in our health authorities? Because I have been told there's at least $250,000 being paid out right now as a supplement to managers, a wage differential being paid to managers who have a nurse practitioner reporting to them. Because these nurse practitioners are not reporting as part of a medical staff, they're incorporated into some department somewhere else in the system, some manager of something.

Now, that could be fact checked I'm sure because my number may or may not be right anymore, but the principle is if we have nurse practitioners that are in our system right now, currently employed with the regional health authorities, how do we move them into direct patient care? Because that has to be part of the solution. That is something again we will look at with a new regional health authority, how will that roll out? But it's clearly part of the solution.

Finally, one big item in health care that impacts a lot of people, more so those of us that live outside of the Avalon Peninsula, those that live in Labrador more than anyone else, those that live on the Northern Peninsula, those that live in Western Newfoundland and Port aux Basque, and all of those people know where I'm going with this, I'm talking about medical transportation assistance.

Medical transportation assistance, this is something that is within the control of the government to do. It doesn't depend on anywhere else in the country. It's a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution that can be brought home on Thursday. So we will stay tuned to see if, in fact, with all of the monies that have been thrown around, with all of the monies and announcements that have been made in the last four to five weeks, is there a way that we're finally going to say you won't have to worry about whether you can afford to get to your medical appointments because we're going to step up and do it for you.

Just this past week, I spoke with a 74-year-old lady from the Northern Peninsula who has to take her son to St. John's for a treatment and she always has to take him. She was being told that she couldn't fly, even though the weather was predicted to be bad, even though she's driving from St. Anthony with no escort, her and her son, from St. Anthony to St. John's and was being denied medical transportation assistance for a flight. Instead we're going to put her on the road with her son.

Now, you tell me where that makes any sense to anyone in this House of Assembly. It does not and it should not. We should be there to say you don't have to worry about that, we'll make sure you're safe. We'll make sure you get that flight and we'll make sure you get there, because that is why governments are there, to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to help people and to make those decisions and this is one decision that is completely within your control and there's no excuse not to do it.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair now calls on the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure again to get up and speak to this hon. House discussing Bill 25, granting of Supplementary Supply to His Majesty. It's a big concern that we've noted many times throughout this House today, the focus on health care and a focus on cost of living.

Of course, the cost of living really affects everything. It's far reaching when you look at affordability and individuals who can't access services and programs because of affordability.

Food, of course, is a huge piece of everyday life for us all. Everyone has to eat, but not everyone can afford to eat. I mentioned in this House before, many of us can go home and ask: What's for supper or what's for dinner or what's for lunch? Whereas there are others in this province, believe it or not, who ask: Is there anything for dinner? Is there anything for supper? Is there anything for lunch?

So when we look at the cost of living and granting additional funds to help address that, I do hope that government takes a more precise approach in ensuring that those in most need, those most vulnerable are getting the better benefit of this, as my colleague from Labrador had spoke to earlier today. She talked about the $500 cheques being well applauded in her district, but, again, her district is very different from other parts of the province.

In her district, people are struggling and the $500 cheque, I would say, went as far for them as prices could allow up in Labrador because, as we know, the cost of food and the cost of goods in Labrador are astronomical when you look at – I know she shared in the past some pictures of the prices of a pork chop or something that we take for granted here and the prices are just unreal.

Related to that, of course, my colleague from Stephenville spoke about MTAP – spoke about travel. To just get to Labrador, it's amazing. I can fly to Calgary and back for less than a flight to Goose Bay. It's amazing when you think about it, your own province. Then if they have to travel for medical reasons, there's a higher level of stress and anxiety placed on individuals.

Think about extracurricular activities that you want to put your children in. I mean, for some, that's just not even a thought because they just simply cannot do it. Yet, we talk about the social determinants of health and trying to keep children active and healthy, and if they don't have that as a choice, what do you do for them?

I mentioned earlier today about the two extremes on the continuum. We have our young, our youth, our children, our infants and, on the other end, we have our seniors, our elders who are in the golden years of their lives. Both those groups are extremely affected by the cost of living.

As we know, we talked about child care and the $10-a-day child care. How yes, it was supposed to come in and it was supposed to be a blessing for us all and provide some affordable child care, but it's actually probably created some more obstacles in terms of the availability of spaces and those having to pay huge sums for unregulated spaces to look after their children, or they make the decision to not work and to stay home with their children.

Again, that comes down to affordability and making having children and having a family affordable. That's what it comes down to. As we spoke and we heard today, many people in this province, many young couples who want to start a family are held back because can we afford it, and secondly, is there someone to look after our children. In a province that's so desperate to increase our population that should be an area of focus.

If you swing to the other end of the pendulum, of the continuum and you talk about our seniors, you're going full circle and you have seniors on the other end of this. Many who are on fixed incomes and many who you see they're making choices between if they can eat or how much they can eat, whether to turn the heat up in the house or not, what they do with their medications. Do they ration their medications? Do they dilute their medications? Do they fill their medications at all? Again, this is a cost-of-living issue for our seniors.

Then, if you're lucky enough, like our Member today from Green Bay, with their parents in the gallery, if you're lucky enough to have parents that are at their age healthy, able to get around, of sound mind and body and still recognize their kids, it is a blessing. But if you have elderly individuals who are suffering from other ailments – and we hear a lot on long-term care homes about those suffering from dementia – you have to find a place for them to go to be looked after and cared for, but that comes with a price. If there is not an available place for them to go, someone has to look after them and that means either the support of your family members or affording someone to come in and look after your adult.

In a lot of ways, child care and adult care are very similar in that you want your loved ones looked after and cared for, and it is difficult to do if you can't afford it or you don't have the supports. Here we are in a province with the oldest population, we're aging, and our baby boom wave has hit the shores long ago. We need to be ready – well, we should have been ready to deal with that. So here we are treading water at the best of times to try and address that issue.

On the other side of that, of course, as I said earlier, we're a province that is desperate for young families to come to the province and young families that are already here to stay here. For them to be here and to be contributing individuals to the province, to the economy. That's what we want. But we're not going to do that if we don't make the necessities of life to them affordable and accessible.

That is everything from child care positions where people can put their children, affordable programs, affordable prices where kids can live, work, play, and everyone can excel in their environment. The cost of living is something that is putting a drain on us and especially those who are most vulnerable. I can't imagine how some of them continue day in and day out. As I mentioned earlier today, all that puts an immense strain and anxiety on individuals which creates other problems. Not only physical health issues but your mental health issues. I can't imagine every day being concerned about whether I'm going to heat the house, whether I can eat, whether I got medication, whether my children are going to be cared for and whether I can go to work. These are very basics that no one should have to get up any day and worry about it or try to make a choice on it or flip a coin or whatever they do to get through the day.

So hopefully, in the budget coming down in the coming days, we are going to see some real action towards that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I now call on the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

It is once again a privilege to speak here in the House on this particular thing. You know, it was good that there was something, but we could have used and thought about the bigger, broader picture of the cost of living in this province, poverty and how do we address those kinds of issues.

I stop to think about my own district in the sense that I'm blessed in Labrador West. We do have a very thriving mining industry, going on 75 years-plus of mining in the region; but, at the same time, I have extreme poverty in my district. It's not as blatant as one might think it is, but we have long wait-lists for housing. We have people couch surfing all the time that we have to deal with. We have those who are in a very hard situation, but I do have large amounts of wealth and prosperity at the same time. So there's a huge disparity that's there and you layer that on top of the massive cost that is to live in a region like Labrador West.

We have some of the highest rent in the province. We also have some of the tightest housing stock. It's almost near impossible to find any place to rent or anything right now. Even after some of the units that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing fixed up, we still have a wait-list. They fixed up so many, but we're still in a crunch in the wait-list of people who actually need housing, people who are staying with family, people who are going from house to house, you know, doing that.

So that's the thing that we do suffer with. When I see this one time cost-of-living cheque, fine and dandy. That's great for that one time, that one period of time on a calendar, but at the end of the day we've got to stop and say, what about every other month? What about every other month that people are in a hard situation at this time?

My colleague, the Leader of the Third Party, mentioned that we're talking about excessive amounts of greed in the corporate world that's actually affecting everybody in this province right now. We're seeing massive amounts of profit being generated. Yet, we see nothing come back to us or the country at this time to rationalize why are you gouging people at such a vulnerable time. That's what we're seeing. It's amazing to see, both in the resource industry, but also in the food and grocery industry that, you know, these are pressures that are being applied to the province. I mentioned it before speaking, that we have a duty as a province to also insulate our residents from some of these global factors.

So I did mention before, the question is why aren't we doing long-term measures? Why aren't we doing things that plan out and say, you know, this is how we're going to get people on a more stable footing? You look at the cost of heating a home. My colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, mentioned about the cost of heating a home in Torngat Mountains. It's very expensive, but you've also got to look at the cost of living in Torngat Mountains, which is very expensive. You couple that on top of, you know, the traditional ways of the people on the North Coast.

So we have these pressures that are being applied there, like that cost of heating. So why aren't we taking a step back and go: what measures can we do to make sure that it's easier to heat your home? Something that a lot of people take for granted, but for some people it is a very real factor that they have to plan out how they're going to heat their home. Can they afford this much oil this week or can they afford to turn the heat up from 16 to 17? These are things that some people who are in very tough situations think about that other people just take for granted.

We'll go back to talk about greed in the resource industry. We look at oil companies right now and what they're charging for a very important thing for heating your home. You know, 20 per cent of this province heats their home by oil heat and the cost has ballooned to an astronomical kind of reality here. So we take a step back and realize this is one basic need, with a lot of pressure on it, that maybe in the long run we look at okay, the cost of heating your home, that's one thing.

Then there are people who heat their home with electricity. That's a very large portion of this province that does that. Even though it's a bit more stable of a price, at the same time, some people still have a hard time paying that bill and heat their home with electricity.

So this is the solution that I put out is to remove HST from that bill. That is a long-term measure that can actually help so many people; it helps them right there on the piece of paper that comes in their mail every month. That's a measure that we could actually take as a province that actually helps people, directly helps people that are very vulnerable right now. That is just one of the many things that we could also look at.

Heating your home is a basic thing, but having a home is a very important thing as well. There are a lot of people in this province that don't have a home or a very stable home. You look at the cost of renting. I just mentioned that I come from a place that has some of the highest rents in this province, but even in the City of St. John's right now, it is very expensive to rent here in the city. This is where we need to take a big, broad look at housing as a holistic thing of how we can get more people into affordable housing and stable housing and for some people a long-term housing plan.

I still have people on a wait-list in Labrador West. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing did some work, got some more units opened up, but we still have a wait-list for people looking for housing. So clearly there is a need; clearly there is something that needs to be done about stable housing.

My colleague for Torngat Mountains always mentions about stable, affordable and accessible housing in the North. That is a serious plan that needs to be made by this province and even the feds, to talk about how we provide housing to those who are vulnerable in the North.

Just getting a lot cleared is $250,000; just to get a lot cleared to put a house on. That is some serious issues that we should desperately be addressing because it talks about affordability. It talks about putting a roof over somebody's head. You talk about affordability, but it also culminates with your health and your well-being so this is where we really need to take a serious think about.

We talk about one-time measures, $500 cheque, fine, but there are a lot of long-term measures that do go back into the idea of affordability, but also your health and your well-being. So we talked about housing; we talk about heating the home.

Another thing that shocked me is that we've seen measures that go out there about inflation and stuff like that, but I have never seen the cost of groceries come down at all. I have seen them go up since all these measures have come into place, but I have never seen them actually come down. That's another serious look that we have to do is accessibility to food, accessibility and affordability. Because once again it also affects our health as a whole.

We've seen the rise in actual farming and stuff like that, but, at the same time, is it happening fast enough? Are these individuals who are actually going to take on agriculture and stuff, are they being resourceful enough to actually take on the task of bringing up our provincial food stock? Because we still import a lot of food into this province. We need to actually look at a bigger, broader plan of how do we produce more? I know there's some stuff being done. But it does go back to the same thing.

We have the $500 cheque, that's one space in time, one month in time, but in the long run of things, if we look at our farmers and look at how we can get that food into the hands of everybody at a price that is, not what we're currently seeing on shelves and the amount of greed we're seeing currently in the grocery market.

But at the end of the day, a long-term plan on food accessibility actually is also a plan on affordability. Because we all know that if it's done here in this province it's actually going to reduce costs for the people that actually need it. This is the thing we're looking at is, we have a serious problem with food security. But at the same time, we also have a serious problem with food affordability.

This is where we need to take the step, how do we make sure that the farmers that are in this province have the ability to do it, but they also have the ability to do it in a way that is going to bring down the cost, going to bring down the price. This is where I think we need a bigger, holistic plan on health.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member's time is expired.

Thank you very much.

I now call on the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Glad to have another opportunity. Mr. Chair, I want to talk about home care. Before I do, though, I just feel like I have to comment.

When I first got elected here 11 years ago and we're after going through a lot of changes, different Members, a change of government, leaders and all that stuff. But there was a time in this House of Assembly when we got into budget time we'd be debating the budget, we'd be debating bills and whatever the case might be, there was always a back and forth. I don't know about other Members, but I really feel this is missing.

I'm not saying this to now try to get everybody all upset and be controversial and whatever, but there used to be a bit of a back and forth that if someone said, well, I have these concerns about housing and this or that or whatever, then the minister or someone would get up and sort of counter it. You'd get both sides of the equation and would feel like you're having a legitimate debate.

But I've got to say, the last couple of years, it seems like all we're doing is this side gets up every time we've got a bill, every time it's the budget or whatever it is, and we're all just putting our concerns on the record and everyone here is just ignoring it and then there's zero response. There's nobody getting up to refute anything being said to let us know that maybe there's something we're getting wrong, something we're missing. I would really love to hear a few Members on the other side tell us how we're wrong. I'm sure it can't all be doom and gloom. I know it's not all doom and gloom.

For one thing, I'd love to know what's going on. The Member for Port aux Basques was a very eloquent speaker. I'm not just picking on him, but I've got to say I'd love to know some of the positive stuff that's going on with our oil and gas industry, with rare earth minerals. I'd love some updates on all that kind of stuff. I know he can supply it. I know he's more than able. But it seems like everybody over there, they've been told to just sit there, zip it, say nothing and just let them talk to themselves until they get tired and then we'll go home. I don't know, I just had to say that.

Anyway, I just want to talk about home care because this is something I've had a number of people reach out to me about as well. My colleague from Topsail - Paradise has raised this issue. Last time he was up, he talked about the child care and the home care. Actually, it's something I've been on Open Line the last two weeks talking about, this very thing, about both ends of the spectrum. So we know the challenges in child care and we know that there is a new pay grid coming out for ECEs, and hopefully it's something that's going to be meaningful to address that side of it. But there has been things done in terms of child care. There has been things; the cost is now down to $10 a day. Now we need to improve the accessibility side of things. Hopefully, the new pay grid will help with that and other initiatives.

But, on the other end of the spectrum, we have our senior citizens and I'm talking about our vulnerable senior citizens. Senior citizens who require home care. It doesn't necessarily have to be a senior citizen. As a matter of fact, the last gentleman I spoke to a couple of weeks ago, I ran into him at an event or the grocery store or something, I can't remember. Anyway, he came up and approached me and he said: Can you bring up the issue of home care?

In his case, he's an elderly gentleman but it's his child, because he has a child with Down syndrome and a multitude of issues. I think Down syndrome is part of it, but that's not really the debilitating piece because a lot of people with Down syndrome, from a health perspective, they're functional and so on, some very much so, as we've seen at the Special Olympics and so on. His child had a number of different health issues and so on and special needs and, basically, requires 24-hour care.

So here's an elderly couple and, from their perspective, the issue of home care is not around an elderly spouse; it's around a child with special needs. You don't have to be a senior to be impacted by home care, I guess, is the point I'm making and that wasn't his case.

He told me that he doesn't use a home care agency. Because you have the option here. You can use a home care agency – like Serenity Home Care as an example. That's one in my district. Or you can choose to hire someone yourself, privately or whatever the case might be. At the end of the day, he wasn't using an agency, but based on the amount of subsidy and so on that he receives from the government, he's only able to pay the worker $16.50 an hour and zero benefits, no holidays, nothing. That's what he told me. So that's it; $16.50 and then that's it.

He told me that the amount he's received, like to be able to give an increase or whatever hasn't changed – he told me six years. I'm only going by what he told me. The minister might say no, it was four years, three years. Maybe he got an increase last year and he forgot about it, I don't know. He told me six years.

The point of the matter is that at $16.50 an hour to care for somebody with complex needs, whether it's a child or an adult, just think about it now – and needs vary from person to person, of course. For some people who need to be cared for, the person who is providing the home care need to have like special training in terms of connecting medical devices or hooking up tubes, or cleaning wounds or doing whatever it might be and some of it can be quite complex and quite scary.

There are people who have seizures regularly and you've got to deal with that kind of stuff. There are all kinds of issues. Still, you're into this situation where these people that are providing this critical care, which is really an extension of health care, it's part of the health care – it may not be happening in an acute-care hospital or a long-term home or a personal care home, but it's still health care.

We actually say we want to keep people in their homes as long as we can and they're getting paid, in this case, $16.50 an hour, zero benefits, nothing. So how are you supposed to get anybody to work and to care for our most vulnerable, our most frail, our most elderly, our most disadvantaged, how are you going to get someone to do it for that kind of pay? Isn't it a sad reflection on our society as a whole when we place a greater value on someone working in a coffee shop? Just think about that for a second now.

I'm not against someone getting paid well in a coffee shop. I mean, I've worked Tim Hortons day and McDonald's has a day that you go and you help out behind the counter. I forget what it's called. Happy days, is it? Or McHappy or something. I've done it and I mean, those people working there in those shops, they're run off their feet. So don't get me wrong; I'm not begrudging them whatever they get. God love them; they work hard.

But my point is in terms of placing a value on the importance of that work, that we place as high or higher a value on someone working in a coffee shop or a fast food restaurant than we do caring for our moms and dads or our grandmothers and grandfathers or a sibling or whatever, people with special needs and so on. We are placing a higher monetary value to do that. There's something wrong with that picture, particularly as it's part of our health care system.

I know when I asked the question in Question Period, the Minister of Health did say that the budget was coming and stay tuned, I think, was what he said. So I'm going to stay tuned. I know there are a lot of asks and I know there are a lot of needs, no doubt about it. It all got to be paid for and it's all coming out of the one pot and, quite frankly, I'm trying to figure out where we're getting all the money to be paying all the money out for doctors and everything we're doing now. We must have pumped some oil in the last few months. I know the prices are good, but we must have pumped some surplus of oil, the money that's flying around now like crazy. I hope we did. I'm glad we did.

Like I said, I know there are a lot of asks but I've got to say to the minister that I really hope that when the budget comes out, there's going to be something there that's going to be significant for home care workers in this province, whether they work privately for someone or whether they work for a home care agency. Nothing against the home care agencies either. They can only pay based on the subsidies that are coming in from government. If government are not giving them the money, they can't magically find money or grow it. They don't have money trees either.

So, hopefully, there is going to be something substantial for home care.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member's time has expired.

I now call on the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

It is certainly a good opportunity to get up again and have a few words based on the district. I will certainly go back to touch on the ambulance issue for sure. Like I said, it is a big concern and speaking to one of the Members across the House here, his granddaughter was here the other day. It is pretty terrifying when something like that happens to somebody in you family. That is the point I'm trying to make. It's terrifying for anybody to have that happen.

In the district when you have people calling, they're concerned; they're not sitting there waiting for it to happen. There is something going to happen along the way and it's a big concern in my district for an ambulance. I will keep harping on it; I'm not going to let it go.

Hopefully, it will get to a point that we will get an ambulance that is going to be staffed here; that is our issue, getting it staffed. It is incumbent on government to be able to do that. It's very important for the people in the District of Ferryland to be able to have that and have some comfort. I mean, whatever happens when the ambulance get there, that's to be determined, but at least to have the opportunity to be able to get an ambulance there, that is our main concern. I'm certainly going to keep at it and I'm certainly not going to let it die.

I did hear a couple of Members also talk about child care. I can relate to that and I get the gears over here from some of my own Members about child care. I've been on it since I came in and they've been wondering how many kids I got, but I have two grandkids. My daughter had her name into a daycare in Bay Bulls before the child was born. She just finally got in in January with a new daycare that has opened up in Witless Bay called The Rielly Roost. It's great to see a new daycare in the area.

It is certainly appreciated that they are there and they spent the time and the energy that they had to put in to renovating that building, the fire suppression. All that stuff is expensive. They are making a lifetime investment, for sure, in the area. So they did get into that daycare after nearly three years. The youngest grandson is in full time and the oldest kid is only in for half a day because they take some of the kids coming out of school after they're finished kindergarten or Grade 1, after 2:30. They're there until the evening or 5:30 so they only accommodate them for half a day.

That is even an inconvenience to the parents that have their kids there for half a day. They have to have someone pick them up, whether it be a grandparent or whether it be a babysitter that they have lined up at 12 o'clock to go get them. It's great that they're in the area, but it is a little bit of an inconvenience that they're not there for the full day.

In Bay Bulls, where they were before, there was a 48-spot daycare in the Livestyle Centre. She's been on the list forever. This one happened to open up and she had her name in there as well and they did get in there.

So the daycare issue is a big, big issue. You can offer $10 a day, that's a great plan. Certainly, everybody is going to applaud that, everybody. The problem is, again, we'll lean back to plan. The plan is $10 a day – great. You can have it for nothing if you can't get them in there. There's no room.

They should have been looking at facilities to be able to do this. So it's easy to say we'll give you $10 a day. It can be $100 a day, if you don't have anywhere to put them. Now with the subsidy that some of these places got for $10 a day, there's some daycares that are open from 8 in the morning until 4:30. Now that's not very convenient for people that are working from 8 to 4:30.

Some of the calls I get, they're having to wonder if they're trying to force these out so they can go back to be charging $75 a day for a kid and people will still buy it. If they shut down $10 a day and they get someone that wants to pay $75, they'll be filled because they've got people that need daycare. It's not suiting everybody.

They haven't thought it all out. The plan is what we're getting at. It's the plan. It's the same as my ambulance issue. There's no plan. It's the same as the doctors, no plan. Things change. Every time you ask a question there are different answers.

Fee for service, I think they said, on the doctor. I've been speaking on that for a year and all of a sudden, two Fridays ago, they come and tells me there's a fee for service available. That's not what she wanted. They were looking for rural retention bonuses and then they throw that out there. It's totally – I don't know where it came from. That's the kind of plan.

Now we've got a rapid response unit. Where is it going to be in the ambulance part? I'm after switching from daycare and now I'm back to the ambulance again, but where's the rapid response team going to be? Is it roving through the district? They throw that out. That came out of nowhere. Right out of nowhere, that came out. Again, I'm talking about a plan. They put out the rapid response team, roving in the district. The first question that came that night: Where did that come from? That was on Open Line. I was at home. The minister was on Open Line, waiting to go on and calling to tell me to tell me he's going to make an announcement on a rapid response team.

Now that's the kind of plan. That's what I'm talking about a plan. It's not him. It's the whole government. You've got to have a say in this. There's no plan to it. To come out and say that on an Open Line call to give you a heads-up that they're going to come out with a rapid response team. Does that sound like a plan? That sounds like a reaction. That's what it sounds like. Proactive instead of reactive. I hate to be saying it but that's exactly what it is. They're reacting to stuff. It's just like throwing something at the wall and hoping it's going to stick. That's what it's like. That's exactly what it's like.

Hopefully now this budget, when we get it, it's going to be a good budget and we'll be able to get our Members up on the other side. Last year, they didn't think their budget was that good. They didn't get up to speak. So maybe this time with a real budget they'll be able to get up and brag about what's going on. I'm certainly happy to hear that. That'd be great and I'm looking forward to it.

As the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands had said, last year, I had said the same thing, if the budget's so good how come no one's getting up and talking about it? No responses, no nothing. Normally that's what riles us up over here to be able to get up and speak, to hear what you're saying. Maybe we'll get that this time on this budget. It's going to be that good there's no way you'll be able to stay in your seat; you'll have to get up. There's no way it can happen.

I'll talk about schools in the district. I said I was going to touch on this and I'm not going to let it go, because I have a Member here on this side that has some benefit as well.

In 2015 – it's before I came here, so it's nothing to do with me being here, but we had a school in the budget in 2015 that was axed. It was gone. In Mobile, it was gone. Up in Mobile area that was the school, 2014-15, they squashed that when the budget came out. It was supposed to be there, absolutely, yeah.

What happened is the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, he got – and he needed it, I'm not saying you don't need it. You got renovations to your school out in your area and good for you. Renovations in your school in your area somewhere that you got some renovations that are happening or they're going to happen.

B. WARR: It's going to happen.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, right, it's going to happen. Hasn't happened yet.

The Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, brand new school. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair has a new school as well in her district since 2015. If I'm not mistaken, I thought I heard you speak about it last year or the year before. Funny, they all happen to be Liberal districts, but that's fine. We can move on past that. I'm running out of time now.

Now there's going to be one in Conception Bay East - Bell Island, there's going to be a school. That just happens to be in the Premier's district. He just happens to live there. It's in his district, but the Premier happens to live there. So that's four schools that were gone and the one that we had was squashed.

Now, I haven't been up on that at all because it hasn't been an issue, but it got squashed when the Liberals came in and there've been four new schools built that haven't been mentioned. But I will say in touching on that, because I did have a conversation with somebody, it might've been in our caucus, I'm not sure who it was. When you build a school or come up with building a school, I don't see why they don't think about putting a daycare attached to the school and be able to take care of it from there and have an after school program.

If you're going to do it – now everybody wants one. He wants one in his district, you want one in your district, you want one in your district, but if you're going to build a school, I think you should build an after school program to take care of the kids that are from kindergarten to Grade 6, I'm going to call it elementary school. I think it would be a great idea.

Now, I'm throwing it out there. It's a good idea that somebody should have a look at. If you're going to award a school, put an after school program or a daycare in it. Let's see if we can do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Now maybe the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island might be the first fellow to benefit from that, I'm not sure. But we're not getting any benefit.

I will touch on the fishery a little bit – I'm not going to have enough time; I know I only got a minute – but I know that the fishermen were out protesting yesterday and they got good right to protest. The inshore fishermen that I've spoke to are down to 10,000 or 11,000 pounds of crab. In 2016 and '17 – I'm going to say '17, in that area, just speaking to them – because again, when you get into it, it's pretty complicated when you look at it, there's no question about it, in regard to adjoining biomasses and all that stuff.

In 2017, the inshore fishermen had 34,000 pounds of quota. They got cut because a rare phenomena happened in 2017 or '18. The crab dropped and there was no crab in the area. So they dropped the quotas. They're down to 11,000. Now, 11,000 last year was $77,000. If it's $3 a pound this year, it's $33,000. They're cut in half. They've got to hire someone to go out there – I'm trying to get through this quick because I'm running out of time. They've got a person that they've got to hire with half the amount of money to be able to do the job that they've got to do. Their quotas were cut. The crab is in the area. When they throw out a balloon, they're tied up to the next person that's in mid-shore. They're full of crab. They won't increase their quotes and they should be increased.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Sir.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I now call on the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to stand and have a few words and talk about what the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was speaking about. I see the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development. This is an important issue that was brought up to me on several occasions. One is the raise, and it's funny because the two or three calls that I got, one is the raise for the people who are doing home care. It is important and this person – six of them were taking care of one kid with special needs – they haven't received a raise in six years.

I know the minister is aware of it, but is there something we can do because a lot of those people that they care for do have complex needs and you need some training for some of the needs that they have. So it's something that I hope the minister will look at and maybe it's in this year's budget. Hopefully it is, I'm not sure. But it's something that I've got to raise.

The other issue I would raise to the minister – and this is an issue that's not brought up very much. It's an issue which is very personal, not for me, but for a lot of the residents. It happens, I think, 21 or 22 times across the province, where someone with special needs or someone with extraordinary needs, you can hire a family person. The problem, I say to the minister and to the government itself, is that some people, when they get into a certain state, when they got to do personal hygiene, it's tough to let some stranger do the personal hygiene with you.

I know it is a grey area because then you are hiring family members. But a lot of people who need this personal attention and the personal hygiene, they want a family member doing this work. I just raise that with the minister because it has been brought to my attention by a lot of people that they don't want someone that they have to get from home care and maybe the next day they have someone else from home care. If there is any way that you can incorporate that, okay, you get a certain amount you can hire – and if it is a family member who is already working that is different, a certain income, but it is a serious issue.

You take any of our mothers in this room and if they needed some personal care, they want their daughters to do the personal care. The continuity the Member mentioned is true, the continuity to it. But we look at it across the province and it is brought to my attention and right now – and I have been on several occasions – if you need to hire a family member, you need to go through a full appeal system. You may win some and you may lose some, but you can. It can be done, but it is a process that you have to go through.

It was brought to my attention by several people that the money is there. The money is not the issue; the issue is that you can't hire someone that is related to you to do that work and to take care of your personal needs. In a lot of cases, people won't call in workers as much because it is personal and they're embarrassed and they want just family members to help out with that.

I say to the minister, I don't know if there was ever a review done in the department on that lately or if there is anyway where you can look at that. That is an issue that has been brought to my attention on many occasions. As we get older and there are more needs, that is when family members say, well, Mom don't want so and so. Mom doesn't want someone they don't know. Mom wants someone that, okay, she has a sister or something; she has somebody who is not working that they can help out.

It is dicey. It is, because then all of a sudden you are paying family. But the money is there anyway, and that is always the argument. If the money is there to help out with these four or five or six hours a day, if there is someone who is not working and someone who needs the funds and they're a family member, can we look at some parameters whereby you can hire family members?

It is being done now, but there is an appeal process that you go through and it is done a lot in rural Newfoundland where you don't have the home care workers and their services.

So I ask the minister if there is any way that that can be looked at and do some evaluation through the department because one of the people that called actually wants me to drop up to see if there's anything I can do with it. The only thing you can do is make the application. It's going to be rejected by policy, which is understandable. Then you have to go through the appeal process. If you can't justify that yes, we can get a home care worker today – now tomorrow may be a different home care worker. There's no continuity, as the Member mentioned. Then they won't really say I don't want anybody. I'll try to do it on my own or I'll try to get some family member to come up when they're ready.

So it's a touchy situation. It's something that's very personal to a lot of people who need that special assistance. I know some people who are very, very much in need. They can't wash themselves sometimes. They can't take care of themselves sometimes and they can't get out on their own. Yet when it comes to their personal hygiene, they want someone they know, who they feel comfortable with. It's to keep their pride and to keep their dignity that they need.

So I'll sit down and take my seat, but I just ask the minister if there's any way that your department can look at something like that for the people that really need it and the people who want to feel good about themselves. When you bathe them, they don't want someone they don't know. They'd rather have a family member.

I ask the minister if there's any way that the department can review that and if there's anything that can be done to help that out. It would be greatly appreciate it. I would be fair to the minister. It is a situation where people may take advantage –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Health.

E. JOYCE: The Department of Health.

There is a way that they can get it done but it is a dicey situation, I would say, because then you might get people taking advantage. There are a lot of people who aren't taking advantage, who really need it and really like to have it just to keep their dignity and their respect for themselves so that they have a family member where they feel a lot more comfortable. I don't think anybody in this room that has a mother or a sister would not want a family member to help take care of them than somebody coming up and – now they're professionals when they do it. They are professionals when there doing it, but it's just that pride part that they need.

So I'll take my seat and I just want to express that view because I was asked to do it and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands brought that up earlier. He brought that up earlier and I just want to echo what he was saying about the need for the raise. Six years, they haven't received a raise, and also for finding some way we can get personal hygiene done by a family member somehow to help with that situation.

I'll take my seat, Mr. Chair, and I'll just thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues on behalf of the one person who has a lot of physical disabilities. There are six of them at home taking care of a kid with special needs who haven't received a raise in six years.

I'll take my seat and thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Any further speakers?

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Motion is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.” (Bill 25)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The Schedule is carried.

On motion, the Schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2023 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CHAIR: An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The motion is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report that they have adopted without amendment a certain resolution and recommend that the bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report that they have adopted without amendment a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Motion is carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted without amendment a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2023 the sum of $20 million.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the resolution now be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2023 the sum of $20 million.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, for leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply bill, Bill 25, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 25, Supplementary Supply bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.” (Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill, An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 25)

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the Supplementary Supply bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 25)

On motion, Bill 25 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the Supplementary Supply bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third 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.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2023 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move 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 10 a.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.